A Practical Guide For Dealing With Cops

133
8411
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

There are two main schools of thought when it comes to dealing with a cop during a traffic stop (or “safety” checkpoint). One of them is disgustingly obsequious, unworthy of a free people. The other is absolutely correct – in principle – but elements of it, if followed to the letter, can and probably will lead to unnecessary trouble.

The first school says Yes Sir and No Sir the cop, accede to his every request; be “cooperative” (that is, surrender all your rights) and Do As You Are Told. The problem with this approach is you’re counting on the cop to be decent, which he may not be. And if he’s not – if he’s a bully with a badge (and yes, they exist) then your supine submission may actually egg him on. There are times when it’s critical to stand your ground. I don’t mean be aggressive. I do mean don’t be passive. If you make it clear that people – cops or otherwise – can walk all over you – well, usually they will do just that.

Ok, so what’s the sensible middle ground? The practical, real-world smart way to handle a traffic stop?

* First, make sure you never – ever – leave your driveway without your vehicle in legally faultless condition. All lights working, stickers up to date, etc. If you don’t give them a reason to pull you, you’ve won before it’s begun.

* Second, never leave your driveway without your license and whatever other paperwork the Clovers (government) have decreed we must always possess.

I don’t like it any more than you. But you’re a noggin in search of a wood shampoo if you get stopped by a cop and assert “Sovereign Citizen” doctrine or some such. I’m with you in principle. We should not have to carry “papers” in a free country and all the rest of it. But you will get exactly nowhere arguing this point with a cop. No, wait. That’s not quite true. You will get taken somewhere.  To jail. This is to be avoided, if at all possible – unless you are that ardent about making a point, at least. Which if you are – bully. But most of us would prefer to just get away and go home for now.

* Next, if Johnny Law appears on your bumper with his wig-wags flashing immediately slow, put on your turn signal and pull off the road – and as far off the road – as you reasonably can. Whether the stop is righteous or vicious, doesn’t matter. He’s got the gun, the badge and the Authoritay. By pulling off as far as you can onto the shoulder, you’ll be showing consideration for “officer safety,” which may soften the cop’s attitude. For the same reason, turn on the dome light if it’s night, shut off the engine regardless – and put both hands on top of the steering wheel. Wait quietly.

* Save the argument for later. Crack your window just enough to slip your license and registration paperwork through. Keep the door locked. Be civil – but not submissive. Don’t let yourself be baited by the cop into any discussion that will lead to an admission of guilt – or admission of anything, for that matter. If he asks you questions, just shrug or, if you prefer, respond with a neutral, noncommittal statement. It is your right – but probably not wise – to quote the Bill of Rights. Probably it will just aggravate the cop – and while I don’t give a damn about his feelings, I do understand that I am at his mercy in a situation like this. You should understand it, too. If it comes down to it, you should absolutely decline permission to search either your person or your vehicle. Say it loudly enough so that it will be picked up by the visual/auditory recording equipment almost all cops now have.

* Make a recording. They are recording you – and whatever they record will be used against you. Make sure you can tell your side of things later on with the same incontrovertible “there it is, right on the tape” verisimilitude. But, don’t make a big deal of it.  In fact, try your best to make the recording without the cop knowing. It could mean all the difference if the cop is a bad apple – one of the alarmingly common control freak types, possibly hopped up on steroids and looking for a punching bag, that can be found all over YouTube and other citizen protest venues of late. Save the evidence for later, when you will be at a much reduced risk of street justice – and at the ugly mercy of a cop’s word vs. yours. And don’t sweat the legality of recording a public official performing his public duties.  While a few proto-Stalinist enclaves such as Illinois and Maryland have arrested citizens for recording cops, these cases have uniformly been tossed by the courts.

The bottom line goal is to get done with the stop and be on your way again as quickly as possible. To be as forgettable and anonymous as you can be. To avoid escalation. To improve your chances of beating the wrap later on in court – or by gaming the bureaucracy.

Always remember that as much as it sucks – as much as we value our natural rights as free men –  when the deck is stacked against you, discretion can be the smarter part of valor.

Throw it in the Woods?

Share Button

133 COMMENTS

  1. Clover I can’t let BrentP have all the fun, so in response to your first point:

    Clover wrote: “Whey do we stop people over some limit and charge them with DUI before they kill someone? To prevent them from killing someone and to stop the dangerous activity.”

    I’m not sure what a byproduct of cheese making, “Whey”, has to do with any of this….

    I do know that you think “safety checks” (i.e. police state roadblocks) are the answer to “drunk driving”. But the simple language of the Bill of Rights states that there must be “probable cause”. If we can be detained, questioned and tested simply for traveling by right (“driving” actually describes a commercial activity) over the public roads (that we pay for) we are on a very dangerous slippery slope. You have traded essential liberty for a false sense of security; this is NOT a free country anymore.

    Now I’m going to throw the “victim card” on the table for YOU. When I was in the Air Force my fellow Airman and good friend Bob said he was going to meet us out after work one night. He didn’t show, so I went by the Comm/Nav shop to see him the next morning and razz him about wimping out on us. You can imagine my shock when they told me he was dead! He’d pulled out the front gate on his motorcycle (everyone in our group were riders) and was hit by a car running about 60 in a 45 zone. The drunk driver ran a red light and tee-boned Bob on his Yamaha XS-650 and dragged him over 200 feet BEFORE she hit the brakes.

    It turned out that the driver had just been discharged from the Air Force for alcohol abuse. According to the police, she was so drunk she couldn’t walk and that was why she continued so far down the road with a 450 lb. motorcycle and its rider wedged under the front of her Pinto! Her license was already suspended; that didn’t stop her. She had prior DUI’s; that still didn’t stop her. The authorities knew she was a dangerous repeat offender and couldn’t stop her. You can spout all the unsupported “statistics” you want, but my buddy is still just as dead.

    Your safety checks, DUI laws and even the threat of a vehicular homicide conviction didn’t stop the moron that ran over Bob. And they never will stop people like that. All you’ll do is inconvenience those of us that haven’t done anything and catch a few people that are over the arbitrary .08 limit to generate a revenue stream for the system. The poor folks will get a record, pay fines, higher insurance rates and possibly end up having to take a cab to work. The well-to-do will pay a shyster thousand’s of dollars and walk away scott-free. That’s how it actually goes down; ask a cop if you don’t believe me. So much for equal protection under the law.

    Let’s face it, those people who can be educated don’t drive impaired. The ones that do drive impaired don’t care any more about the law than they do about their own safety. Even in countries where drug distribution carries a death sentence, and you can be stopped and searched at will, people still sell drugs. Does it occur to you that perhaps education, not prohibition, is the reason fewer Americans smoke cigarettes now?

    I’ve said it before; if a police state is the system you like so much, move to North Korea. You’ll be damned safe from drunk drivers over there and completely free of liberty, property and privacy to boot. That’s the style of government we’re headed for. These “may I see your papers, please” traffic stops are one more leg of the route to totalitarian dictatorship. Is that what you want?

    • Clover’s “logic” is so simple-minded it’s quite literally startling. It amounts to: Since “x” is potentially dangerous we must assume “x” is actually dangerous, in every case even when there is no actual danger evident. Worse, she rationalizes open-ended treatment of everyone as a suspect criminal because some people engage in criminal behavior. This is the leitmotif of Cloverite “thought” and it amounts to a complete rejection of everything America (and the West) once stood for. Guilty until proved otherwise. Lettres d’ cachet – arbitrary power; the subjugation of the individual to the mass. With Clovers claiming to represent the mass.

    • I’ve tried repeatedly to get various people to comprehend that laws do nothing to stop the irresponsible or criminal. Such people don’t concern themselves with the law by definition. Laws only work on people who weren’t a problem to begin with and with people who can reason, who can be educated if presented with facts they can evaluate themselves. Laws beyond the basics are thus not necessary because those who can be reached can be reached by education more effectively than with fear and those who can’t, can’t be reached regardless. Committing the bad acts is punishable under the simple laws.

      • Also, morality.

        Rational people appreciate moral arguments; e.g., it is immoral to take someone else’s stuff, or harm them.

        Clovers, on the other hand, only understand The Law – in the same way that a cow “understands” an electrified fence.

        • Good point. I don’t think a ‘clover’ has any morality of his own, only what he is told by authority. Hence the inability to discern what is good and bad outside of the law.

      • Brent, I heard my dad say “locks only keep honest people out” on numerous occasions. That’s the same principle under the law you describe; only people who are already “law abiding” pay any attention to it. This is why businesses and many homes have deadbolt locks, alarm systems and even bars over their doors and windows. Ride through north Memphis sometime and you’ll see folks living is self imposed prisons because there are so many lawless people there. If the law could stop or even meaningly deter the thugs, then the public wouldn’t need the shrouded locks, iron bars and concertina wire to keep their stuff. Apparently the taxpayers that put up the money for all these real “deterrents” understand just how effective all the money they’ve already spent on the courts and police was. I’ll bet a lot of those folks have….OMG!…..handguns! And many carry them in their cars too!

        What Clover doesn’t grasp is the rest of the world is remarkably different from her little suburban microcosm of cookie cutter houses, manicured lawns, Soccer games and surgically enhanced MILF’s. She and her partner don’t go places that might require one to soil one’s hands with the nitrates of burnt gunpowder and none of the rest of us should either. If we just drove the speed limit (plus five, because even Clover knows the speed limits are too low) in our minivans, back and forth between the office and our Little Pink Houses, watched 4.5 hours of tee-vee every day and took our Prozac, everything would be just fine for us too. Delusion must be a wonderful thing.

        • That last post should have read “meaningfully”, not “meaningly” (oops).

          And based on what I’ve seen around the archetypical Mid-western suburban bastions of Cloverdom, the Olathe / Overland Park areas of Kansas, on US 69 and I-35, “five over” is actually practiced at 10 – 15 over most of the time and merely reported as “five over” to the rest of the world.

        • agree entirely. Clover has clearly never lived in the ghetto or even anywhere that is merely working class. People in such areas aren’t anywhere nearly so concerned with the law. Many can even understand the fundamental criminality of government…. but… usually they can’t quite make all the connections.

          Which gets me to the not-quite-clovers. These are a strange bunch. Sit back and listen to them rant about the bad government so and so and make outright libertarian sounding statements. Then interject a libertarian way of organizing society… they’ll go full clover in an instant.

          I find that this often attached to a ‘right people’ sort of view. The system is ok, just doesn’t have the ‘right people’ running it. It’s kind of a weird half-way house of cloverism.

          • If Clover’s “reasoning” in re guns were valid, I ought to be living in a war zone. People here (rural SW Virginia) aren’t merely armed. They are armed to the teeth. Most people have several handguns as well as a few long guns, including high-powered deer rifles and shotguns. VA is a “shall issue” CC state, which means that any person not a convicted felon or known mental case who can demonstrate basic knowledge/proficiency is automatically issued a permit upon application. Guns are everywhere. And yet, violent crime – especially crimes involving guns – is rare. Except, of course, in “gun-free” zones, such as Virginia Tech. Interestingly, the shooter did not obey the law.

            Of course, his victims did.

  2. @Eric “But lately, I am wondering whether it is due to the fluoride or some such. Seriously. I see more and more people who just act as though they are lightly drugged.”

    I agree with that observation. Perhaps fluoride has something to do with it. Too much television dulls thought processes (our grandparents called it the “Boob Tube” and the “Idiot Box” for a reason) and shortens our attention spans. Sail fawns and ‘texing’ don’t help either. But the I think the biggie is anti-depressant drugs. Feel a little down, have anxiety or panic attacks? Go down to the Doc in a Box and he’ll write you a “scrip”.

    Plus, as I’ve seen this brought up on this site before, you don’t really have to drive nowadays. With ABS, traction control, automatic transmissions, back-up cameras and even auto parallel parking, much of the actual driving is gone out of the equation.

    Just like welfare and food stamps discourage people from working, every new gadget they add to an automobile for our convenience discourages us from driving. We have that better sound deadening material, cushy suspensions and automatic climate control too. So now you now have drivers that can barely feel the road unless it’s torn up. Less feedback equals less driver involvement which equals more road-born zombies.

    I saw the same thing happen with Personal Watercraft in the early 90’s; I was a “real” Jet-Skier, as in riding a JS-550 I built for performance with me own three hands. You had to stand up and balance to maneuver; that required a great deal of skill, coordination and actual athletic ability. You were INVOLVED, you had no choice!

    Then the sit-down (what I call “point & shoot”) PWC’s came out. Any overweight half-wit adolescent could climb on one, pull the trigger and run right into the dock or somebody’s boat at 60 MPH. So there were a few accidents. Then Clovers begged the Virginia Marine Police to get in the middle of it all and Jet-Skiing ceased to be fun.

    As unskilled riders started to populate the waters around Tidewater, Virginia with these aquatic buzz bombs, I traded my Ski for a Honda XL-600R. I figured the bike was safer. But back then we didn’t have all the Prozac and Cymbalta dulled Soccer moms in 3 ton SUVs trying to put a DVD in for the screaming brats in the back seat while texting Domino’s for a pizza and NOT driving. Uruguay’s sounding better all the time….

  3. Sickening. There are no ‘peace officers’ to be seen.
    Go ahead. Bow down to your masters at every level. It is
    sickening to see people on their knees at every chance they
    get to get kicked around and argue the finer points of crap that
    should never happen. Look at the bankster crimes, the SEC crimes, the Fannie/Freddie crimes, the Citigroup crimes. Sick of it yet?
    Apparently not. It’s all related and if you do not believe this, you’re gonna love the epilogue..
    Cops are nothing but corporate tax collectors, working for the corporation. The corporation is created to turn a profit. It is an empty entity as you are acquiescing to be unless you get off of your knees.
    GOOD DAY.

    • Editor’s note:

      Clover, listen up. Henceforth you will answer direct questions/rebuttals to your posts or new posts won’t be allowed through. You won’t be allowed to annoy, distract and otherwise pollute this site with your meandering drivel. It rubs the lotion on its skin… or else it gets the hose again. Got it?

      That said, here’s your latest gem –

      “Al, you go and deal with all the domestic disputes and the druggies, the drunk drivers, the bank robbers, the gang members and see if you call it tax collecting.”

  4. Very good advice but I would have to add a key component missing. Any time you get pulled over and you know you did nothing illegal or even if you did and was say for example just speeding, never hand over your personal effects until that responding officer has told you specifically why he stopped you. If you were speeding wait till he tells you what speed. If he/she refuses to offer that information they are probably lying and especially if you asked to see the radar gun, it is amazing what lying about a couple MPH can mean to them (I have caught them numerous times). If they resist justly informing you do not get into an argument simply understand what department policy typically is and what the next step to take is. Especially if you get pulled over and you have not done anything illegal and they refuse to tell you why they pulled you over after you have asked nicely just go ahead and ask for his/her OIC (Officer in Charge) or group supervisor. Typically that will square them away but if not make sure what the conversation will be like that you will have with that cops supervisor. Ask that supervisor how his subordinates should be interacting with the public. At this point typically his answer will be different than what you have documented and will square away the roguish cop. If it gets to the point they are making baseless threats then you must be ready to threaten them with a misconduct report against them. If they threaten to arrest you for not furnishing your identity when pulled over, threaten them with a misconduct report and criminal charges for false arrest, improper detainment and kidnapping. They are a public servant and have department policies set by all cities/townships. They include a number of rules including covering how to interact properly with the public, in addition to Rule of Law that they need reasonable suspicion to stop you. If you document that they did not have reasonable suspicion (i.e. you did nothing illegal) in stopping you in the first place then the ball is in your court as long as you know your rights but the moment you hand over your license and registration you have admitted guilt. Know your local county sheriff and local prosecutors. Once you have been wrongly arrested they “can” be of great help. Also good honest cops do not tolerate roguish behavior in other cops. Hopefully I added something of value someone can use to not be wrongfully arrested like I have. It has protected me from repeat scenarios. I guess civilian cops don’t like the military.

    • Editor’s note: Another fine example of Cloverite “thinking” –

      I just skimmed through some of the posts here. Most all of them were confrontational with anger blaring and many carrying weapons in their vehicles. Nothing more needs to be said about this group. I am not confrontational or show anger on a daily basis and why is it that I do not need a gun in the vehicle I drive? Guns in the vehicle are not a liberty as many of you feel as it is a necessity in your mind because you are willing to pull it out at any moment because you are pissed off even before anything happens.

      • “Guns in the vehicle are not a liberty as many of you feel as it is a necessity in your mind because you are willing to pull it out at any moment because you are pissed off even before anything happens.”

        It speaks for itself. Again.

        Lookee here, Clover: You do not forfeit your 2A rights by dint of being in your vehicle. Period. Even better, it’s “The Law” – which you get so moist over. Maybe not where you live. But certainly in several states, including VA – where it is legal to open carry in a car without a permit. I have a CHP, so it is also legal for me to carry concealed in my vehicle.

        So far, Cloveroni, I have not once “pull(ed) it out at any moment because you are pissed off even before anything happens.” You know why, oh scrumptious little morsel you? Because unlike a Clover, I have something called self-control. People who carry guns are very conscious of the responsibility they have; they are thus among the least likely to seek out a confrontation, let alone involve a gun in one. Fact. (A real one, not “de troof” as in Clover’s World). Check the stats on CHP/CWP possession and crimes of violence involving firearms. It is a fact that you are more likely to be shot by a cop than by a citizen CHP/CWP holder.

        But poor ol’ sore-gummed Clover only feeeeeeeeeeeeeeels. And “just knows,” too!

      • Actually Clover (and I’ve written about this before) my ex-wife was confronted by a serial rapist in our rural Virginia home in the middle of the afternoon. He drove out to the country from town because he knew that police coverage was sparse. She was trained with her firearm and shot him even after being chased through the house. This man’s previous victims were unarmed and not so fortunate. So in your worldview you think it was okay for her to be armed in our home, but not in the car? Or do you simply find firearms objectionable in the hands of civilians period? I suspect the latter.

        My first marriage disintegrated in no small part because of that incident, since my wife no longer felt secure in our home. I met a nice lady and we were engaged. I purchased a handgun for my fiance (now my wife). She was a nurse working in Richmond on second shift at the time. Twice on her way home she encountered men that clearly had ill intentions toward her. One man followed her from the hospital parking lot and tried to force her off a two lane country road in an isolated area. She merely held up her handgun where he could see it and he immediately disobeyed the speed limit getting out of there. So in your twisted worldview I guess she “was pissed off” and pulled her gun “even before anything” happened? How about she was scared stiff, alone and didn’t have a cop with her. What would you do, wait until you car was in the ditch and the pervert was choking you to death with your own pantyhose before you reached for a weapon? It would be a bit late by then dontcha’ think? Apparently not…once again.

        The second incident occurred at a well lit gas station parking lot in Richmond. My wife noticed a suspicious looking man hanging around outside the door when she pulled up to the pumps. She said the girl behind the counter was obviously nervous and watching him too. Before you counter with some asinine comment like “How could she know there was something wrong with him?”, she had not only lived in the city enough to have some street smarts, she worked on a psych unit and was trained to assess people; you know, to see if they should be in four point restraints or sedated because they would attack you. She waited to get out of her car. This “gentleman” walked right up to the front of her car and just stood there staring at her. She put her handgun in the package tray above the stereo where he could see it and he disappeared! What do you think he was there to do? Engage in enlightened conversation? Women like you amaze me.

        In both of these cases no one was injured. The firearm wasn’t even pointed at the potential perpetrator and the whole situation was resolved peacefully. The added benefit was these two individuals now have an expanded worldview; pretty young nurses may very well have a gun so it’s best to leave them alone. In your world of gun free peace and tranquility, two of the women in my life would undoubtedbly be permanently scarred, both physically and emotionally, right now; if they were still alive.

        Go read the Wright-Rossi study: it was paid for with tax money through the NIJ. The two anti-gun professors that did it had to reconsider their positions on gun control after interviewing 1,874 inmates described as ‘handgun / shotgun predators’ incarcerated in 10 different states. Once you’ve actually educated yourself, get back to us. If you choose to remain ignorant, shut your pie hole.

        • Boothe, I am not a big gun supporter or fight against someone having them What I was saying is that the guys that carry them in their car because they have anger against the world is not a good thing.

          You say that guns are for safety. There are a lot of stats that disprove that. Most people that are shot in their homes are shot with their own guns. There are thousands of guns stolen from the homes that have them and many used in robberies and shootings. A cell phone and a horn and door locks are far safer deterrents in a car than a gun ever will be. Yes you are right if you are in a rural area without cell phone coverage and with a lot of crazy people in your area or a lot of drugs then a gun may be called for but for 99% of the rest of us a gun is a bad thing rather than good.

          Yes I have used guns before and own a few but I would never carry one in a car. Why would I? The chances of it ever helping me is 1000 times less than winning the big lottery. It is a million times more likely that I will be killed by a drunk driver than needing to pull a gun while in my car.

          • Another Cloverite gem:

            “You say that guns are for safety. There are a lot of stats that disprove that.”

            Such as? You mean, like DC and Chicongo? So safe there! Meanwhile, here is a fact (vs. a “stat”) for you to chew on: In every area (state/county/city) that has enacted “shall issue” concealed carry or where ordinary citizens are legally not denied their right to own handguns, there is less violent crime than in areas that have passed laws denying people their right to possess guns for self-defense. But Clovers fixate on the handful of high-profile shootings by criminals (who almost never are CHP holders), which are statistically insignificant as their evidence for the need to take away or severely restrict the 2A rights of everyone else.

            Don’t you just loves you some Clover?

            Oh, PS: A fact (that embodies a troof) for herself: You are much more likely, statistically, to be shot by a cop than you are by a CHP holder.

            And: Guns are not for “safety.” They are for (among other things) self-defense.

            Only Clovers get moist thinking about “safety.”

          • Clover until you read (at least) the Wright-Rossi Study don’t come here spewing “facts”. The reason we can carry a gun in our glove compartment or console without a permit here (another reason I moved to Missouri) is because of urban car-jacking. A car-jacking occurs in seconds and without a gun, you are defenseless. Even in the big city, when seconds count the police will only be there in minutes. That’s if you are still conscious and able to use your cell phone (i.e. if the thief didn’t take your phone too). A lug wrench or even some broken spark plug porcelain will open a car window in milliseconds making your door locks worthless.

            It’s your choice and your right to go out unarmed. But it’s just as much my right to travel armed. Just because you have some notion that there are angry young men out there roaming the countryside looking for a road rage incident doesn’t give you the right to disarm me or anyone else. Quite the contrary, if that’s the case, it’s all the more reason to be armed. The possibility that one of these angry young men will draw a gun on an armed citizen is what keeps them at bay, as much or more than ‘the law’ or ‘the police’.

            Your distorted “blue pill” worldview doesn’t change human behavior. Predatory people just like predators in nature seek prey that is weaker than they are. If a sufficient number of people in a given society are armed, the predators will find other ways of making a living or end up on the wrong side of the turf. It really is that simple. Here sweety, go check out just how safe gun control makes people: http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart

          • Boothe I can not help your paranoid mentality. You are like a guy I know at work. A salesman can sell him anything. Just add a fact that something is happening around the world somewhere and it is enough for him to buy anything. He is the kind of guy that has a 250 gal water tank in his garage in case of an emergency. He is looking at a hand water pump that costs thousands of dollars in case a terrorist event happens and they do not have water for a period of time. He is thinking about spending thousands on a whole house generator in case something happens. I told him he can buy a hand water pump for less than $50. The design that has been around for a couple of hundred years.

            You say that you have seen in the news in Chicago that there was a car jacking or whatever. You are the kind of person that breaks out the guns. If as you say a person can break into a car in seconds with a tire iron, what are you going to do pull out a gun every time someone comes within 100 feet of your car? How many people where you live have had a car jacking where they were endangered? None in my area. If it starts happening then I may think about ways to protect myself. I doubt if they would be after a guy in a car that costs less than 20 grand brand new and it is a few years old now. I guess I use common sense rather than have someone give me a sales pitch to me that I need a gun in the car.

          • Clover, you’re a hoot! You have a guy at work with a water tank, he wants a nice hand pump and a generator. You apparently think this is foolish and he doesn’t. It’s his money and this is a nominally free country so what’s the problem? I can assure you (since I know some folks that lived through it) there were plenty of people in New Orleans that would have loved to have had some potable water, canned food, a good flashlight and (Egad! Dare I say it?) a gun, in the aftermath.

            I was stationed in Fort Walton Beach, Florida in 1979 when Hurricane Frederic hit. I had a young wife and baby (less than a month old). I was young, inexperienced and ill prepared. We had to pack up what we could and evacuate. So maybe you would consider me a bit paranoid now, but I seldom get caught with my pants down. Do you even have the basics on hand that FEMA recommends? Or are you counting on the government (meaning your fellow taxpayers) to come bail you out if something happens? If it’s the latter, you’re unwise to say the least.

            Clover, I carry a fire extinguisher in my vehicle and wear a seatbelt. Do you honestly think I want to have a fire or a wreck? You think I’m paranoid? I’ve used my fire extinguisher before….on someone else’s car. I also carry jumper cables and have used them many times….to help other people. So just because you haven’t experienced something leads you to believe that someone else that has is somehow paranoid because they’re prepared? Wow.

            You seem to have very limited life experience. Maybe you live in an idyllic place where bad things seldom happen. That’s great if it’s true. But the rest of the world doesn’t necessarily work that way. The first good ice storm and your coworker’s neighbors will all be at his house wanting to use his generator to charge their cell phones. They’ll all be saying “Yeah, when this ice storm’s over, I’m heading down to home depot and gettin’ me a generator too!”.

            Guess what? As soon as the power’s back on they’ll promptly forget about it and go buy a new set of golf clubs or a bigger tee-vee instead. Next ice storm, they’ll be sitting in the dark going “Gee, I wonder if ol’ paranoid Hank’ll let me charge my phone offa his generator again.” You’ll probably be first in line.

            • I’ve noticed that one of the defining characteristics of a Clover is that it is not content to live its life as it wishes – and leave others alone to live theirs as they see fit. The Clover is besotted by the notion that its ways are the right ways – and that you and I must be forced to do things its way. It cannot tolerate independent-mindedness. It is the sole possessor of truth and right. It gets morally offended when you merely wish to agree to disagree – and be left in peace to do your thing. It believes in “social obligations” and “majority rule” and “the public good” – as it defines these things, of course. It is elitist (in the bad way) and condescending and most of all, controlling.

              Sothrens call this being a “Yankee” but the mindset is far from exclusively a Northern defect. However, it does have its antecedents in the cloying “do-gooderism” of the Puritans and so on.

      • Interesting. Do you think the guy pulling me over should also refrain from keeping guns in his (well, the taxpayers’) car? Do you think he shouldn’t threaten me with a gun when he makes me stop for going faster than an arbitrary sign?

      • Poor ‘ol Clover.

        Ever stop to think that it is confrontational to deliberately impede other drivers by refusing to yield? By anointing yourself Speed Limit Fuhrer and trying to force everyone else to drive at whatever arbitrary speed you think is the “right” speed? By endorsing random stops of people who haven’t given any reason to suspect them of anything?

        To the Cloveronian “mind,” such things are not confrontational because “we” need them to be “safe” – and being (no, feeling) safe is the mostest importantest thing in the whole world. Just Submit and Obey and you will not feel the least bit confrontational, ever!

        • People who deliberately impede other drivers are pathetic lowlife scumbags. I think you should just delete Clover and Gil’s posts without even reading them.

          • Dom, you never know…..one of these days one or the other of them might slip up and post an articulate and reasoned rebuttal. It could happen ya’ know…..just like man “could” grow gills. It must be true, just like Anthropogenic Global Warming, or Kevin Costner wouldn’t have put it in Waterworld? Right? I “feel” that “the majority” knows this and if you disagree Dom you’re just a mean-spirited “denier”. 😉

          • “People who deliberately impede other drivers are pathetic lowlife scumbags.”

            Much as I want to endorse that statement my life experience so far indicates that a lot of them are just oblivious. It’s like they’re drugged or something. I mean, they are not (so it seems) deliberately trying to impede you. They just don’t use their mirrors, or believe they are doing anything obnoxious by driving 10 or 20 MPH below the speed limit and not pulling off to let the stack of cars behind them get by. Senile citizens are a case in point. I’ve found myself many a time behind what appears to be some probably very nice old lady or old man, bony fingers clutching the wheel, their heads cranked forward on spindly necks… they don’t even know you’re behind them.

            The real problem is our system has set the bar so low that the typical “driver” is a sad mix of incompetent and fearful. People who are neither get labeled “speeders” and so on – even though they’re usually very good at driving.

            Over the course of my life I’ve noticed a significant decline in the driving ability of the average person. Most people just seem to have been beaten down by the system – and millions were raised up (and taught to “drive”) after the country became a “baby on board” and “safety” obsessed wet nursery. I grew up in a much freer country – one that still seemed to value initiative and which actually snickered at cops and stupid laws.

            Things have gone downhill at warp speed.

          • Aight, so I am driving from the gym today to a restaurant to meet one of the wife’s friends. We’re to meet up, eat, and take the kids to the park. So I’m going through the parking lot (leaving the gym) and pulling up to a light. First off the clover coming perpendicular to me from my left didn’t stop at the stop sign (which is fine). So they made it to the red light before me (whatever). I pull in behind them and they stop 20 feet short of the white line leaving me diagonal blocking the lane I crossed to get to the left turn lane. There I sit blocking traffic. I tap my horn and the clover in front of me is too preoccupied with her cigarette and two children to notice. There I sat blocking the lane. It’s amazing! Sorry, Eric. I’m sticking to this, “People who deliberately impede other drivers are pathetic lowlife scumbags.”

          • I know you do Clover. As long as you do it within the shelter of your cage you feel invincible. Once out of your car I’m doubtful you risk the same tactics. You’re a fucking pud.

          • Eric, I think the operative word here is “deliberately”. I understand that some elderly people must travel over the roads and due to diminishing senses and responses must go slow. So it’s not a deliberate attempt to impede. Dangerous at times perhaps, bloody inconvenient for those of us caught behind them, but there’s no ill intent.

            But I think Dom refers to those who plan to impede others they think are driving too fast by pacing, lane blocking and the like. People who do that are indeed lowlife scumbags and that’s being generous. Where I used to work, there was a retired Navy Chief that never got over the military discipline thing or telling other people what to do. Pete (his real name) would leave home early each morning, then drive 45 MPH on the shortcut road to the plant (the direction where the bulk of the employees commuted in from) lining cars up behind him like a train. I came in from the opposite way, so he didn’t impede me, but I sure heard about him from my coworkers.

            Pete believed that people weren’t getting up and leaving early enough, so that’s why they had to “speed” to get to work. Pete just “knew” that the 55 MPH speed limit on that back road was “too fast” so he intentionally lane blocked and even bragged about it! That stupid SOB knowingly and willfully caused people to be late, get written up and thought it was funny. Yeah, that’s a low life scumbag alright.

            This was back before surveillance cameras were ubiquitous, but we worked at a secure facility and there were cameras, as well as armed security, watching the parking lot. From what I heard around the plant, that’s probably the only thing that kept Pete from getting the ass-whupping he so richly deserved. So here was a guy drawing 75% of his military pay, double dipping in a good civilian job and screwing over the very same people his retirement money was coming from and proud of it. Now that’s a Clover extraordinaire!

            Now a normal person, if they felt that the speed limit on a particular stretch of road was set too high to be safe would contact DOT. They’d make their case for lowering the speed limit with the appropriate bureaucrat and let the chips fall where they may. They might even stop and talk to people along that stretch of road to see if they were concerned about unsafe speeds and get them to sign a petition if they were. But the Clover knows that the speed limit was set by traffic engineers, and in all likelihood is more than sufficiently low to ensure a good revenue stream, so it will not be changed. Therefore the Clover, being convinced with all certainty that they are right and the DOT is wrong, will apparently take matters into their own hands. And since driving below the speed limit is not technically illegal the Clover can justify it in their own mind. The more we explore this, the more Cloverism appears to me to be a form of mental illness.

            • Yeah, “Pete” is a common archetype!

              But lately, I am wondering whether it is due to the fluoride or some such. Seriously. I see more and more people who just act as though they are lightly drugged.

          • Boothe, what gives the right of the speeder to endanger others? I have seen speeders speed when they are either late by many minutes or early or on their way home from work. Passing in no passing zones with no visibility of oncoming traffic is far worse than someone driving the speed limit or a few miles per hour over which is not enough for some of you. It is a flat out power trip for most speeders to do what they do because for the most part it is not the need to save travel time. The need to drive dangerously because someone does not want to slow down 3 miles per hour must be some kind of control freak. I have seen it dozens of times when I have been passed only to be behind the person that passed by a few seconds. Explain that one? Speeding only saves significant time if the distance is many miles or someone doubles the speed limit which is extremely dangerous. From what I have seen it is mostly to go less than 5 mph more than the people they pass.

            • Ah, sweet Clover!

              “Boothe, what gives the right of the speeder to endanger others?”

              Your (emotional) assertion that driving faster than an arbitrary number – “speeding”- necessarily “endangers” others is nothing more than an unsupported, vague generalization – and so, typically Cloveronian.

              Some people can operate a car at higher speeds more competently than others can at lower speeds. Regardless, their rate of travel (speed) does not, per se, necessarily mean they are driving “safely” or “unsafely.” There are numerous factors besides rate of travel that define “safe” or “unsafe” driving.

              But small-minded people such as yourself fixate on “speed” – which is literally nothing more than an arbitrary number on a sign. But you consider it holy writ, the final word – the unquestionable, not debatable right speed, for everyone, all the time… which is so, well, Cloverite that it doesn’t require further elaboration.

          • Nice of you to ignore facts Eric. Being able to drive fast has nothing to do with someone driving dangerously. I go back to the fact that race car drivers have far more accidents on the highway than I do. Being able to drive fast has nothing to do with passing on a blind corner or hill to go 3 mph faster. Being able to drive fast has nothing to do with tailgating.

            I heard a story once a guy told that he was mad at the driver not driving fast in the left lane in front of him so he stayed right no his tailgate. He said he was riding in the blind spot of a car beside him for a long distance. He then said that the driver tried to pull over to the fast lane. The guy said with his superior driving he was able to avoid the guy that changed lanes. A guy with superior driving skills knows enough to stay out of the way of someone’s blind spot as much as possible. Being able to push down on the accelerator more does not mean someone is a smart or safe driver.

            • “Being able to drive fast has nothing to do with someone driving dangerously.”

              I’d try to parse this but I’m an English speaker and unfamiliar with Cloveronian Ebonics – or whatever it is you call the above…. .

          • Clover you did not respond in kind to what I posted, so I infer that you approve of lane blocking and pacing if it achieves the results YOU deem desirable. I, on the other hand, will move over and even pull off the road to let people go that are obviously in a hurry. That’s non-confrontational and what we call “common courtesy” around here. Attempting to control others’ speed for them endangers both of you. If what they are doing is dangerous and reckless, leave it to the police.

            There is also the possibility that the person you have impeded may have a medical emergency or a family emergency and you’re in their way. I can tell you from personal experience that when you have a family member that is injured and or in severe pain, I don’t need you or Pete deciding for me how fast I should drive. How would you feel if your mother had passed just two minutes before you arrived at the hospital and you didn’t see her that last time because a Clover made you 3 minutes “safer”? Do you even consider the potential consequences of your actions?

            Or maybe that “speeder” has been detained through no fault of their own by your kindred spirits, the “rubber-neckers”, trying to get a glimpse of some roadside carnage. Now the “speeder” may be late for an important meeting or they’ll miss an international flight, just because you or someone like you dawdled through an accident scene due to morbid voyeurism.

            I’ve driven and flown all over this nation and seen similar things happen more than a few times on the way to the airport. So I started going to a hotel near the airport the night before my flight and billed it to the customer. My customers were usually the taxpayers. I was never late, but it cost the county, city or state (i.e. people like you) at least a couple of hundred extra dollars for MY covenience, because of dingbats like you.

            And guess what Clover, if you live around any major metropolitan area YOU probably bore some of that cost yourself. So look at it this way, you and your ilk caused me to circumvent your asinine activities by going to the big city to stay in a nice hotel, going out eat on your dime and taking the limo service to the airport (and I tip the drivers generously) all at your expense. City administrators and other low level bureaucrats just pay it, because it’s YOUR money, not theirs.

            So every time you lane block, that may very well be diverting at least $250 of your property tax money, that could have gone “for the children”, to a guy like me to have nice hotel room and a good meal out of self defense against Clovers. Where there’s a will there’s a way. And there’s also a law of unintended consequnces. We’ll get around you anyway and make you pay for it to boot. Feel better about yourself now sweety?

          • “I go back to the fact that race car drivers have far more accidents on the highway than I do.”

            And the average German experiences far fewer collisions on the highway than you while driving much faster than you.

            Your statement above is so idiotic… race car drivers are generally RISK TAKERS. That’s their personality. I’ll wager that military fighter jet pilots are on the higher side of the driving crash bell curve too. Same with other people who can be defined by their risk taking personality.

            However, the German driving population isn’t much different in risk taking than the American population. They are just better educated driving wise and put it into practice. Because of this they can cruise along at 90-100mph in safety. The SAFEST I ever felt driving was north of 90mph on rural autobahn. I have never felt safer driving than in this highly predictable and co-operative driving environment.

            The USA’s roads are comparatively unsafe because claybrookian thought like yours.

          • Clover, because you find power over others on the road does not mean you can project that on to others. Here’s a hint… speeders don’t want to control you, they want to get away from you. You want to control them. You’re the controlling personality in this equation.

            As to no-passing zones. I’ve started passing in a few them. The places where passing zones USED TO BE until you clovers got tired of being passed when you were doing 15mph under the posted limit. I’ll be dammed if I am going to respect some painted line so your kind can deliberately slow me to snail’s pace to play out your control freak desires.

            The funny thing is, when I am bicycling you clovers really get your panties in bunch over my ‘slow’ pace. (often faster than when I am stuck behind them driving)

          • Brent P and Boothe, you have not read anything I said. I have never said that I ever drive under the speed limit in traffic. In fact I often drive 5 mph over the limit so that others do not always feel the need to pass. Others do pass though to save less than a minute in travel time and often a few seconds. If you feel that you need to stay overnight to save a minute of travel time I feel sorry for you. If you are late for work because I delayed your travel by 10 seconds I feel sorry for that person’s stupidity. There are 1 in a million speeders that may be speeding because of some kind of family emergency. I have never seen such a person in my travels. The majority that pass me are doing 3 to 5 mph faster than I was traveling. There will be a family emergency if they keep passing in blind areas on the roadway.

          • Clover, once again you fail to address the points. I never accused you of driving under the limit, many of the speed kills drivers are just like you, they drive X over the limit much of the time. But if they get ticketed for it or someone else has a different idea what X should be… just watch them scream.

            As far as delay goes… well I have a personality defect in that if I don’t catch myself I treat other people the way they treat me. This means on occasion I’ve treated drivers like yourself the way they treated me. Guess what? They don’t like being delayed either. Maybe they should have gotten out of bed earlier?

            But back on point, I am one of the most risk adverse people I know. I have no trouble driving fast on the interstate and would go even faster if I could count on other road users to drive properly as they do in Germany. The reason? It’s not risky. What makes speed dangerous is stupidity and the american system that encourages stupidity and nurtures it.

          • Editor’s note:

            Clover apparently did not read the previous Editor’s Note – or she chooses to ignore it. As explained, she will not be permitted to post until she responds, point-by-point, to the rebuttals already left for her numerous times.

            She will not be permitted to endlessly regurgitate her tedious, fact-free talking points and then segue into more non sequiturs. So, Clover, your task is to answer the following:

            * Exactly what speed is the correct speed – and why? Who shall decide?

            * For what reason – other than “it’s the law!” – should a person who is merely driving faster than the posted speed limit, and whose driving is faultless, be ticketed and fined?

            * Why should a person whose driving does not suggest impairment be charged with “drunk” driving merely for having a certain percentage of alcohol in his system – a fact only discovered as a result of forcing him to take a breath or blood test after stopping him for no reason at a checkpoint?

            * How do you square the 4th Amendment to the Constitution with stopping and searching people without even the pretense of probable cause?

            * If “speed kills,” then why is commercial air travel at 250-500-plus knots so much safer (statistically) than driving at speeds of 45-70 MPH?

            * If denying citizens the right to carry handguns makes an area “safer,” then why are areas that have such laws so much less safe – in terms of violent crime – than areas that respect citizens’ right to possess handguns?

            You will answer the questions, Cloveroni. Or you will not get another post through. I don’t demand that you agree with me or anyone else. I do demand that you produce factually supportable, logical arguments, not emotional bleating and vague assertions.

          • Editor’s Note: Well, she is trying. Herewith her latest sage offering:

            “For my final post if it gets posted and to answer the editors questions which will give him something to pick through to create his next article.

            Whey do we stop people over some limit and charge them with DUI before they kill someone? To prevent them from killing someone and to stop the dangerous activity.

            The editor says speed does not kill. I would like to see him drive safely down his local expressway at 250 mph.

            How do you square the 4th Amendment to the Constitution with stopping and searching people without even the pretense of probable cause?
            Driving down our roadways or highways in a vehicle capable of over 30 mph is not a right in any constitution I have ever seen. It is a privilege and you are not supposed to drive if you are not safe to do so. The court ruled that it is better to stop and talk to an individual to see if they are safe to drive rather than kill others. If you do not like this then walk. You have the right to do so but you can still be put in jail for public intoxication. I am sure you could be put in jail for this even when the constitution was written. Name one person that was involuntarily searched without just cause? It never happened to anyone I know.

            * If denying citizens the right to carry handguns makes an area “safer,” then why are areas that have such laws so much less safe – in terms of violent crime – than areas that respect citizens’ right to possess handguns?
            Editor you ask so easy of questions. The reasons these places are so dangerous that outlaw guns is because that is where the high populations are along with high amounts of drug use which you promote and a lot of gangs which goes along with drugs and a high population density. It is far safer if the police see a gang person with a gun to take it from them but you would rather the gang member used them.”

          • it might be trying but it is practically incoherent.

            Stopping a driver that is drunk enough to kill someone does not require a BAC level law at all. Such a driver will be driving badly thus could be stopped for that. Of course if people were pulled over for bad driving instead of the cause of it, then clover nation is going to feel a boot on the neck.

            250mph? Well considering what that costs I don’t think we have to worry about it. However done properly it wouldn’t matter because if everyone follows the basic rules there is not going to be a collision. That includes speed appropriate for sight lines.

            Privilege and right… Um clover, a constitution such as that in the USA doesn’t grant ANY rights. It’s a restriction on government. Rights are retained by the people. BTW, I have exceeded 30mph on my bicycle. Why is 30mph the magic number anyway?

            I’ve been searched without just cause. I was walking at the time. Cops decided that because the color of my shirt was roughly the same as some person they were looking for this gave them the right to harass and search me.

            guns and drugs: The reason crime is around some drugs is because those drugs were made illegal. When a business is made illegal then there is no longer a barrier for competitors to settle disputes and increase market share by using violence.
            Gun bans do exactly *NOTHING* with regard to that violence.

            Furthermore, having drugs legal is not promoting drug use. This sort of logical error you make is to the point of frustrating when dealing with most americans. Why do you have this apparent need for everyone else to do only things you approve of?

          • Clover writes:

            “I guess this is the last post. You would rather have BrentP on here.”

            Are you kidding me? I’d rather have a mealworm here than Clover!

            Ah well. Here is the rest of it… salud!

            “He says driving down the local expressway at 250 mph is fine and dandy. Right!

            He says the make drugs legal and everything will be fine. People completely stoned can not work. Many drugs out there make you dependent on them . If you can not work and you have to have them where is the money coming from? Making drugs legal does promote use. Just like not doing anything about drunk drives also promotes driving drunk. Let him drive home, he is too drunk to walk.

            He thinks he can drive his bike at 30 mph. I can drive my car over 150 mph also if there is a high cliff to drive off of. I think I will let Brent try that one though.

            He does not have the facts that thousands of people are in accidents without weaving all over. Diminished reaction time, vision and thought processes has nothing to do with weaving all over but it causes thousands of accidents each year.”

          • Clover, The filter on your mind is incredible. I state that 250mph for a street vehicle is so expensive as to be not something we need to worry about and then go on that with proper driving two vehicles do not collide and thus make speed irrelevant and this becomes “driving down the local expressway at 250 mph is fine and dandy.” in your brain. I never can tell if people like yourself are just really incapable of processing intellectual arguments -or- are simply dishonest debaters or both.

            Regardless, I promote a system of cooperation on the road by following a few simple rules while you promote a system of control where freakish busy-bodies like yourself attempt to micro-manage everyone.

            Drugs: Clover, it might surprise you that there are many *LEGAL* drugs that do everything you fear and more. Of course the crime around them is generally in Washington DC and the kind you accept so it’s got that going for it.

            I’ve driven my bicycle at 30mph countless times on flat ground. The highest speed I can remember achieving on a flat road was 34mph. I routinely bike in the upper 20s on flat ground. On down hill grades I’ve achieved 40-45mph on steep ones the same because I don’t like going faster than that.

            Weaving all over? This is clear dishonesty on your part. I clearly stated that speed and disciplined driving go together. There is no weaving when drivers are driving properly, that includes practicing lane discipline. The idea of ‘weaving through’ is something that comes from Joan Claybrook, who stated that having slow drivers scattered across all lanes was safer because it forced faster drivers to slow down to weave through. (this quote can be found in Mark Rask’s book, “American Autobahn” if anyone wants to verify)

            As far as the other items go clover, they are mostly diminished by doing things that aren’t driving. As I stated before, the safest driving I’ve ever done was over 90mph. But it wasn’t in the USA and nearly everyone else was also driving over 90mph.

            Your system of accepting crappy driving and telling other people to go slow to compensate for it has created a driving culture where people do everything in their cars but drive. People should be driving and leave everything else for when they aren’t driving and if the system was designed to discourage bad driving instead of specific causes of bad driving this problem would go away.

          • Oh I should add that my bicycling speeds are not by any means remarkable. My all time flat land high speed is cruising speed for a professional bicycling athlete.

          • I had to read BrentP’s comments. What a joke. He says we need to get everyone to drive 100 mph+ so they pay attention. I see people pass me many times with cell phones in hand, reaching for something on the seat or many other things traveling around 80 mph. You can not make these people or us safer by telling them to drive faster.

            You know I could care less if he drives his bike over 30 mph. That speed was just an example. He should know that there was no bikes that went 30 mph when the constitution was written. The only people that can ride a bike at over 30 mph for an extended period without a tail wind or down hill are the top competitive racers. I am not impressed with his 40 to 45 mph down hill. I routinely travel in the 50s down hill with my feet an inch off the ground.

            He says the safest he ever traveled was out of this country at 90 mph. Yes if you have near perfect roads designed for a top speed of 120 mph or more and everyone around you are traveling close to the same speed it is fairly safe. We do not have those roads here. We also have semis and large trucks on our highways. An example is just because you were capable of driving your bike 45 mph somewhere does not mean you can do it all over safely or consistently.

            I have no problem with with you moving to that country where you can drive 90 mph. I just do not want to see it around here. I have seen the accidents that result from it. It may be safe in places like sections in Kansas but it is not safe on the roads that I travel.

          • Clover, I would take you seriously if you actually responded to me FACTUALLY and/or LOGICALLY. Instead you repeatedly open with an inaccurate strawmanish re-iteration of what I wrote. I have long run out of benefit of doubt for you personally. At this point I believe it to be a deliberate dishonest debate tactic because you don’t have a factual or logical argument which to present so you distort mine in a way that is something you can handle.

            I will correct you again, there was no ‘need’ with regards to speed in my post. What we need is people who drive in a disciplined fashion while doing -nothing- else but driving. Something we don’t have today because people like yourself chose to dumb down the system and arrange it ass-backwards. The reason we have people talking on the phone and reaching under the seat and doing stupid things is because of the low speed limits and other dumbing down you endorse. And I can trump you on that because I’ve been HIT by those people. In my cars, on my bicycles, and while walking.

            Clover goes from saying what I have done many times is impossible to saying it’s not a big deal. Clover, tell you what, let me know when you’re in chicago. We will meet up in the parking lot at the lakefront at Irving park road on a weekday afternoon. You can drive, I’ll ride. We’ll stop at a predetermined street, say Lincoln ave. You may not exceed the posted speed limit of 30mph. Since you believe I can’t go faster than that, I’ll have no such limit. Odds are you’ll get there before me because of the traffic lights, however it will not be by any significant time. It will be less time than you expect others to get up earlier in the morning as to be able to deal with your driving.

            Clover, there are large trucks on the autobahn too. The US interstate generally occupies a much bigger foot print too. Yes, the germans maintain the roads well, namely because road building there isn’t a politically driven enterprise to rip off the productive class like it is the USA.

            Clover, people are already driving 90mph on the roads I travel. The speed limit is 55mph. Get over it, stop being a control freak worried that someone might be driving faster than you feel comfortable with and start worrying about real safety issues.

            Furthermore gory individual incidents are not a way to set policy. Otherwise you end up with a worse system than you started with. Which is what we have driving wise and why US interstates continue to lag in safety.

            • Thanks, Brent, for going to the trouble (again) to set Clover right, point by point. I bet your fingers hurt by now…. It’s not going to sway Clover because he/she/it/them is beyond reasonable discussion. But (as I’m sure you intend) your careful rebuttal reveals Clover’s idiocy for the others here.

              Again, thanks for taking the time….

  5. Eric: 11-19-11-Martial law is a fact in this police state we call Amerika. They just have not declared it yet…Sooo…when stopped, always ask this question: “What’s your P.C.?” (Probable Cause, but don’t use the term.) That stops them in their tracks and if you keep your mouth shut and don’t show stupidity, they will gain a measure of respect for you and think that you’re an insider who knows something. Let them think what they want, the human mind races to conclusions, so be pleasant, but, let ’em know you’re not their next patsy. Really Eric, you should re-write your article and slip this comment into the text so that no one misses it. Keep up the good work, you are doing a great job informing the public about the tyrants in gov’t. Wes

    • My best friend from college, still my best friend, a highly intelligent and moral guy, wants to work for his fucking campaign!!

      Instead of exploding in his living room and leaving a nasty brain-smear on the ceiling, I took a deep breath and asked him “what’s the real underlying problem in the world today?” After a bit of leading he admitted it’s the move to one-word government.

      Then I described all of Newt’s dirty little ties–the CFR, Bilderberg, Bohemian Grove. His commitment to sell out at the first opportunity, every time, to furthering globalism.

      Guess what? He still likes him. Because Newt’s “smart”.

      We’re doomed.

      I still don’t know whether moving to the country, or OUT OF the country, is the best plan. Expatriating might buy you a few years, but the bastard globalist banksters will just show up there (wherever there is) a few years later.

      The ONLY thing we have going for us in the Fascist States of Amerika is a dim tribal memory of “freedom”…but it’s so vague it’s like those Lord of the Flies kids telling each other stories about “the before-time”.

      • Methyl I don’t think it’s ONLY that your friend thinks that Newt’s “smart”. I’ll bet it’s easier for him to let the establishment talking heads decide: after all, they spend all day “studying the issues” and “vetting the candidates” while we’re out working for living, don’t they? Surely the lame-stream media pundits wouldn’t lead us astray….

        Since your friend is highly intelligent, morally upright and self sufficient, he assumes that the prime time liar’s club must be too. We tend to impute our values, beliefs and intentions to other people. This is how evil people play us like a fiddle. Your friend is not immune. Very few of us are. Point this out to him if you care about him.

  6. Of course. America is fast becoming the Fourth Reich – compare the Homeland Security Act to the Enabling Act that was the foundation of Hitler’s tyranny.

    • Yep. Many have noted the odd use of terms such as “Homeland” to push measures and so on that are of a piece with measures enacted in another “Homeland” some 60 odd years ago.

      Maybe Mel Brooks was right: Don’t be stupid, be a smarty – come and join the Nazi Party!

  7. On pulling over somewhere best for “officer safety”. This is something I will not do. I pull immediately. Why? well I’ve read too many stories of cops becoming enraged when a driver finds a safe lighted location because the driver did not obey immediately. I’ve also personally encountered enough of the majority of cops that make the good ones look bad to get a good idea that those stories are absolutely true.

    Additionally I really don’t care about “officer safety”. Being a highwayman is an inherently dangerous profession with or without state license to practice it either as an employee or an independent. I will pull over and stop immediately, the cop can then direct me elsewhere if he doesn’t like it. I might find a safe place for *MY* safety, but my safety is also includes not enraging the cop by not obeying immediately.

    I guess my point is that it’s a catch 22 on where to pull over. I just believe the odds are better obeying immediately than not.

  8. Since acquiring a concealed carry permit, I find it has had the unintended consequence of making me a much more conscientious driver. Driving legally armed has made me acutely attentive to any and all potential “causes” that a cop might have for pulling me over, and utterly committed to avoiding such situations, for obvious reasons. Legal or not, I would prefer to avoid any occurrence where I am required by law to inform an “officer of the law” that I am armed. That means studiously avoiding any and all traffic violations.

    At the same time, I find myself cultivating a much longer fuse when it comes to reacting to discourteous fellow drivers. The reason is quite simple: Since I am driving armed, I wish now–more than ever before–to avoid situations that could escalate to serious confrontation. An armed society is, truly, a polite society. At least in my estimation and practices.

    I called these things “unintended consequences” of my CCW permit. More accurately, I suppose I should call them fortuitous benefits.

    • Hi Jay,

      Me too.

      In Virginia, you’re not required to tell the cop you’re armed, but I do regardless. Not for “officer safety.” For my own selfish reasons. I don’t want to get shot. And, I believe that by informing the cop even though I’m not required to do so, I start the interaction off in a non-confrontational way, which my (and has) result in my getting away without a ticket.

    • I find – now that the state of Virginia suspended my license for statutory reckless driving – that I drive more attentive to the laws as well, and I fucking hate it!

      Those laws shouldn’t exist in the first place. They are abusive and criminal just like the reckless driving law. Why should I care about them at all?

      It’s the same with the firearm. So many people are starting to exercise their right to be armed and open carry. The idea being that if you are threatened, especially w/a deadly weapon, then you can defend yourself. And who is typically the first one to threaten you with a deadly weapon when they see you open carry? A cop! And does anyone defend themselves now that they are armed? NO! So then why are you fucking armed?

      The only time I’ve ever had a gun pointed at me was by a cop. No one else has EVER threatened my life with a deadly weapon. That can be achieved mainly by using common sense.

      Until the culture changes in this country. Until law enforcement expects us to be armed AND knows we’ll defend ourselves against ANYONE who tries to abuse our rights, regardless what kind of clothes he’s wearing or who he works for, then being armed is a waste of time and money and doesn’t serve much more than a bunch of people trying to look cool.

    • I tried to explain the “armed society is a polite society” to the editor of a college rag at Notre Dame. He had written a specious article on the benefits of gun prohibition I found particulary offensive.

      I called him out on it with real life experiences where I’d had to keep my mouth shut and my temper under control because I was armed. I pointed out to him that had I not been armed there would have been a fist fight, at the very least, on several occasions. But the fact that I was in possession of lethal force required me to curb my immediate emotions with reason. You can probably imagine the outpouring of vituperous emotional blather I received in response.

      I believe it is their lack of self control as well as an attenuated ability to reason that leads clovers to desire external disincentives to bad behavior. Since they feeeel unable to control themselves, they impute that flaw to the rest of us. If you can’t trust yourself to do the right thing in a given situation, how can you trust anyone else?

      • Washington DC is all the proof one needs to see the fallasy of gun control laws. If you outlaw guns, then only the outlaws will have the guns and the law abiding citizens will be sitting ducks.

        “In 1976, Washington, D.C., instituted one of the strictest gun-control laws in the country. The murder rate since that time has risen 134 percent”

        http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp

        • Yeah Coop, it’s just like the Sullivan Act in NYC. That “law” made it safe for “Big Tim” Sullivan’s Tammany Hall thugs to run roughshod over the law abiding productive citizens of New York. Afterall, you can’t have the local business men shooting the ‘collectors’ for your protection racket. The citizens have been defenseless ever since.

          Parts of New Joisy are just as bad. I was on a job site in Cherry Hill and one of the locals warned me to stay out of Camden. I asked why and he said as a teenager they would hang out at the strip mall parking lot near Camden and count the gunshots at night. Then he told me Camden had one of the highest murder rates in the country. I commented that Jersey had some of the strictest gun control laws in the country; how could that be? He just laughed. Apparently the criminals don’t care about the law…..

    • Jay, I’ve been carrying a gun openly for many years and have never had a “permit.” We are no longer even required to have one in Wyoming. I find that everyone I know who carries, permit or otherwise, feels pretty much the same way you do about it.

      I understand why some feel the need to obtain this “license,” but it seems important for people to understand clearly that the permission slip is not what makes the difference here. The character of the person is the important aspect.

      Back on topic, I hope everyone will take a look at “You & The Police!” by Kenneth Royce (Boston T Party)
      http://www.javelinpress.com/you_and_the_police.html
      ABOUT YOU AND THE POLICE!

      Until now, the average American has lacked a simple, up-to-date summary of constitutional law regarding confrontations with the police. More and more peaceable, law-abiding folks are being caught up in the widening police dragnet of roadblocks, checkpoints, searches, intrusive questioning and civil forfeitures. Americans have long needed a clear explanation of exactly where our rights end and executive power begins, especially if you travel or carry a gun.

      More than a legal handbook, You & The Police! explains precisely how to win police confrontations using: sample dialogue, “what-if” scenarios, and practical tips. Armed with this book, you will know just how to avoid traffic tickets, bogus searches, roadside delays, and general harassment. Probably 90% of erroneous civil forfeitures from honest folks could have been avoided had they known about this book. There is no reason for us to be bluffed or intimidated by the police any longer.

      Updated for 2009! This new 2009 edition is a greatly revised, revamped, and expanded version since the revision of 2005.

      • I went back and forth on this for many years before finally getting my permission slip. Reason? Much as I agree with you in principle, I really don’t want to deal with a felony charge for “concealed weapon” (without permit) which – my opinion – you’re wide open to these days without a permit. Yes, I know it’s technically legal to have a gun with you in the car (in Virginia) without a permit, provided it is in “plain view.” But do you really want to put your trust in a cop on that score? What if he just decided to charge you – or worse? It is then your word against his that (for example) the gun was on the seat, in plain view, and not under the seat (a felony, if you don’t have the permit).

        Just my 50 cents….

    • But back then the like-minded control freaks grouped themselves together and pretty much left other people outside their area alone. That’s why these groups came to this continent anyway… to have their little control freak utopias. People living in their own little controlling societies of their own free will is perfectly fine and compatible with freedom. The problem of course comes later.

      Somewhere along the way all the control freak groups got together to tell everyone else what to do. That is when freedom really started to be lost. Before then one had to consent to being a member of these groups more or less.

      • That’s an excellent observation. Kids are taught in government skools that groups like the Puritans came to the New World in pursuit of liberty. As you note, they in fact came to create their own little control freak group. This mindset later became synonymous with what was referred to as a “Yankee.”

      • This goes back to that 6% of the populace that are truly evil. They will work diligently to get into positions of authority so they can run things for their own benefit. Once that happens on the local level, they move on to take over at the state level, then federal, and of course worldwide. They know each other (birds of a feather…) and will work together against the rest of us.

        Fortunately, there is no honor among thieves so there is a certain amount of infighting. The best thing we can do is to continuely expose their activities to the light of truth. This is why they want an Internet kill switch.

        • Explains why so many cops look like criminals: shaved heads, bulked up, all tatooed up. I’ve said for years, for a lot of cops, if they weren’t cops they’d be in jail. Criminals diligently working to get in positions of authority at the local level.

          • Amen – I’ve posted this before, but it’s worth repeating: “Cops and robbers are heads and tails on the same coin.” (per my dad). He owned a gun shop until the mid-60’s and worked with the police and FBI (including as an expert witness) for years. One cop in particular (who was known to be “on the take”) told him there’s no cop so stupid, that when he shoots someone, he can’t find a brick or a bottle or something to put in their hand. Let me qualify that with the fact that I’ve known some really good cops (in good, upright, compassionate men trying to do what’s right) over the years. But I’ve sure run into some serious pricks too.

            I would say that the 6% figure that Lobaczewski and other psychologists postulate for evil people in society in general is too low for government / military / police. Positions of authority (even in corporations) draw amoral opportunists the way carrion draws flies; they simply cannot resist the temptation of power over their fellow man. This produces a distilling effect, so you will necessarily find a higher concentration of evil in these fields (I’d guess 10 – 15% based on personal experience, maybe more now with “homeland security” training all the rage).

            Powers and principalities are indeed the tools of tyrants. Until society at large becomes interested enough to identify these people, isolate them and debar them from leadership roles, we’re stuck with what we’ve got I’m afraid.

  9. Etienne de la Boetie revealed the truth 500 years ago: We get the “government” to which our neighbors consent (or acquiesce.)

    In other words, whether it’s a Stalinist or Maoist dictatorship starving tens of millions of citizens to death, a theocracy, a monarchy, a republic or (so-called) democracy, what we have is what mothers and fathers approve of their sons and daughters doing.

    “Look mom, I got a job with the (local cops, FBI, TSA, BATFE, etc.)!” Unless mom turns with disgust to the son or daughter, or people are ashamed to reveal for which branch of the Human-devouring Squid they work, things will continue in the wrong direction (unless you, like most people, hate freedom…in which case the USA and world are heading in your preferred direction.)

    Most Americans do not want liberty, wouldn’t recognize it if they saw it, and continue to support its abolition (seat belt laws, .08=drunk driving laws, raising the age to do X, mandating ever more licensing laws and regulations, etc., etc.)

    Freedom in America is an historical curiosity.

    • Hey David –

      Welcome!

      And – sadly – I agree. For every one of us (people who choose liberty, or would if we could) there are probably 1,000 Clovers.

    • Indubitably the majority always win. Even in a Libertarian the majority could refuse to do business with a certain minority thus forcing out of that society and depriving them of their liberty.

      • Clover, you’re beyond belief!

        The last thing Libertarians advocate is majority rule.

        And: Refusing to do business with someone does not violate their rights. What would violate my rights is being forced to do business with anyone.

        • A Libertarian society could theoretically have a majority ostracising a minority. White people in a private town refuses to do business with any Black peple who try to move in such that they can’t stay? Aw too bad.

          • Ah, the dog-eared, shabby raaaaacist card comes out at last!

            Yes, Clover in a free society, one would be free to associate (or not) or do business with (or not) anyone, for any reason.

            The concept is a simple one: Voluntarism. People living together peacefully, without resorting to force for any reason other than self-defense against aggression.

            So yes, a person who just doesn’t like, say, blacks, would be free to avoid them, decline to serve them, hire them – etc. But the black so avoided, etc. has not had any of his rights violated. He does not have a right to force someone to deal with him, to hire him, to serve him – etc. Because there can be no such thing as a right to violate a right.

            I know that by this point your self-flagellating (and posturing) ethno-masochism has you in a paralytic state of spittle-spraying impotent rage, all to the tune of we shall overcooooooooome and let’s go hug an aborigine. However:

            In a free society, most people will associate with, do business with, one another based on rational self-interest. So, for example, if it is good business to serve blacks, then blacks will be served. If it is known that Smith (who happens to black) is an excellent electrician (or whatever) then Smith will have no difficulty finding work. Etc.

            Yes, some people will behave irrationally. But so long as no force is involved, they have not harmed anyone. Your are not, for example, harmed by my refusal to serve you dinner. You have the right to take your business elsewhere. Or open your own restaurant. And so on.

            But instead, you’d rather interject violence.

            You’d rather it be a criminal offense to refuse to associate, or do business with, some “protected” class of people – thereby massively increasing societal malice by codifying it. Instead of people agreeing to disagree – no force involved – you want force. And necessarily, therefore, violence – which did not necessarily exist previously. But it makes you feeeel so much better.

            The goods news is your pitiful raaaaace whining as a vehicle for justifying authoritarian collectivism hasn’t got the power it used to have, Cloveroni.

    • Correct David. People are so proud when their kids get a gov’t job.

      I had a friend tell me recently she was so proud her daughter joined the Navy. I asked her why? She said because she’s going to get some good training. I said, I didn’t know the military was an educational institution. Why didn’t she just go to school like the rest of us? Then she said, she’s going to get to travel the world and see places she might not otherwise see. I said, I didn’t know the military was a travel service. If she wanted to go somewhere why didn’t she buy a ticket like the rest of us? Finally, she says, well anyway Don, she’s going to learn some badly needed discipline and respect. I said, well wasn’t that your fucking job? She hasn’t spoken to me since.

      What I noticed is not once did she say she was proud of her daughter because she was going to be defending her country. Her pride had nothing to do with anything except what her daughter could get out of the Navy and what her mom didn’t have to pay for or do herself.

      I have nothing but contempt for so many people in this country who sleep like babies at night living off the hard work of others.

      • Clapping furiously here!

        The only thing I’d add is that we should always strive to make it explicitly and uncomfortably clear precisely what “living off the hard work of others” entails. That is, murderous violence. Threatening to cage and kill your neighbor if he does not “contribute” his “fair share” to such enterprises.

        People who have any intelligence – and morality – can be made to squirm this way. And squirm they should…

        • I ran into this a couple of years ago in a discussion with an acquaintance over voting. When I explained that I wrote in morally upright candidates, rather than vote for the establishment status quo, she balked. I’d “wasted my vote” she said and that her only choice was to vote “for the lesser of two evils”. I promptly pointed out that meant she was knowingly voting for evil. She has avoided me ever since.

          • We live in a country of cowards and the truth scares the shit out of them. Easier to take the blue pill and crawl back inside their blanket of delusion where it’s warm and safe.

        • I had this discussion re: publik edukashun with a colleague recently. After reducing it to “you’re forcing me to pay for your kids’ schooling”, I further reduced it to force; I am forced (eventually) at gunpoint to pay. Then I asked him if he had the courage of his convictions to personally hold the gun to my head and rob me for their tuition. No answer.

          You’re right, Eric, Americans have become moral cowards.

    • I had the supreme pleasure of implementing my plan to shun and shame all tax-feeders just this week.

      I pulled up next to a beat-up Ford Taurus, which was festooned with a magnetic placard–Harris County Assessment District–the name of our local confiscatory theft and “property tax” agency.

      His window was rolled down, my top was down. I turned to him and said in a pleasant voice, “Oh! You work for HCAD?” He smiled and said “Yes!”. I said “You should be ashamed of yourself.” You could have picked his jaw off the pavement; his expression actually sagged like a deflated tire, and he said, shocked, “Why?”

      “Because you steal people’s money under color of law. Because you work for the government and you’re a parasite. Because you threaten people with the loss of their homes if they don’t pay up. YOU SUCK.”

      And with that, I drove off.

      I look forward to similar shunning and shaming activities in the future.

      I encourage all of you to do the same, and spread the meme; if every government employee were subjected to such treatment, it would rapidly thin their ranks. Or at the very least, make them go about their odious business with less enthusiasm.

      P.S. I hope I ruined that bastard’s Thanksgiving. It may be petty but I’ve never claimed to be high-minded, just right.

      P.P.S. If you’re not ready to shun so directly, start small. Scowl at your mailman.

  10. As aware as I am of the intrusions into our privacy I amaze myself at not thinking about simple traffic stops being recorded. The problem in PA is recording cops is a felony according to my state senator.

    § 5703. Interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic or oral communications.
    Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a person is guilty of a felony of the third degree if he:
    (1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic or oral communication;
    (2) intentionally discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; or
    (3) intentionally uses or endeavors to use the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know, that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication.
    18c5703v
    (Oct. 21, 1988, P.L.1000, No.115, eff. imd.)

    Eric commented to me elsewhere that these laws were designed to protect the citizenry. Maybe so but when you are dealing with the high and mighty when it comes to the PA State Police, not to mention the Feds. Regular folks are just something they scrape off their shoes.

  11. As aware as I am of the intrusions into our privacy I amaze myself at not thinking about simple traffic stops being recorded. The problem in PA is recording cops is a felony according to my state senator.

    § 5703. Interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic or oral communications.
    Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a person is guilty of a felony of the third degree if he:
    (1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic or oral communication;
    (2) intentionally discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; or
    (3) intentionally uses or endeavors to use the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know, that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication.
    18c5703v
    (Oct. 21, 1988, P.L.1000, No.115, eff. imd.)

    Eric commented to me elsewhere that these laws were designed to protect the citizenry. Maybe so but when you are dealing with the high and mighty when it comes to the PA State Police. Regular folks are just something they scrape off their shoes.

    • Hi Martin,

      Welcome!

      The good news is that – so far – no court has upheld such charges. The laws against wiretapping were clearly intended to make it unlawful to record a private citizen’s private conversation without his knowledge or consent. But a cop is a public official, out in public (where the courts have ruled,incidentally, that no one has any expectation of privacy) performing a public function.

      Recording cops is something that ought to be done as a matter of course. And I would not be concerned about their scare tactic charges, for the reason already mentioned. They won’t stand up in court.

      At least, for now.

  12. Good article, Eric. I too have been hassled countless times by the Law over silly things – speeding, parking tickets, being out for a late night walk and looking “suspicious,” underaged drinking when I was younger, etc..

    It’s at the point now that I don’t even get nervous when the stick their noses into my business. I sort of have the attitude of, “Here we go again.” Sort of like when I used to work in a restaurant and my manager would say, “Someone made a huge mess in the bathroom. Go clean it up.” Yeah, it’s unpleasant, but what are you going to do?

    One more practical tip I’ll drop on you, for readers who have not thought of it on their own, is that just about for just about any smart phone these days you can download a digital voice recorder. There’s also apps from qik.com that will stream video from your phone as you shoot it, which would make it impossible for the police to accidentally delete any footage you took.

    I’ve, luckily, never been in a situation where a video would have helped me at all, but I’ve seen enough you tube videos and read enough stories that having this streaming video available to me ensures peace of mind.

  13. I can add this also, from Bill Rounds, who posts at LewRockwell:

    For the past few months, police departments have been using a new iris scanning device to identify people they encounter. Many more police departments will begin using this device soon. The scanner can be held up to the eye of any person and almost instantly identify them more accurately than a fingerprint. Police have imposed restrictions on themselves to prevent misuse of iris scanners. Like a chubby kid guarding a Happy Meal, indulgence is more likely than restraint.

    Currently, iris scanners are limited to checking the person scanned against a national database of iris scans. This database presumably only contains criminals, children and individuals who may need assistance, like alzheimers patients. The devices are not supposed to be able to capture and store new entries. These self-imposed limitations may only be temporary.

    Warrantless Iris Scans Are Probably Unconstitutional
    Although not yet tested, there are some potentially strong constitutional challenges to many iris scans that are likely to occur. If you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in some information or item, the police need a warrant to conduct a search. (Katz v. United States) There is no reasonable expectation of privacy for things that are in the plain view of the public. (Texas v. Brown) Technologies that enhance the senses to be able to see what is in plain view, like common binoculars, can be used by police without a warrant. (Dow Chemical v. United States) Something that is not visible to the naked eye is not in plain view. (California v. Ciraolo; Kyllo v. United States; People v. Arno) Police may also conduct a search that would otherwise require a warrant if they get consent. (Schneckloth v. Bustamonte).

    An image of your iris and the detail of your iris is apparently very important information. Many people might reasonably expect to have a right to privacy in that intimate part of their body. Although the iris is held out to the public, the very intimate details, so much detail that the iris becomes a unique identifier, is not held out to the public because nobody can see that with the naked eye. A very powerful technology that can see more than the naked eye, even upon very close inspection, is required. Thus, such a search will likely be unconstitutional without a warrant.

    Do Not Consent To An Iris Scan
    If you agree to have your iris scanned for identification purposes, you give up any chance you had of fighting the constitutionality of a warrantless iris scan. Simply stating that you do not consent to having an iris scan taken should be sufficient.

  14. On recording cops: I’ve adopted a two-pronged approach: an audio recorder, concealed, as a back-up, and a video recording up-front. If the cop orders me to turn off the video (and most likely confiscates the camera and “inexplicably loses” the video file), the audio will provide documentation of what’s happened.

    Defeat the thugs!

    • Amen!

      This is a excellent – peaceful – way to fight back and defeat the thugs. If millions of people would actively insist that their rights be respected, we could turn things around – or at least, make things a lot better than they are.

        • Clover, your comments are incoherent and seem to be deliberately intended to just annoy people rather than present an intelligent argument or make some kind of worthwhile point. You won’t respond to factual counterarguments when presented; you just keep on blathering. So, be warned: I won’t let you clutter these boards with bullshit. You can can disagree with me or anyone else all you like and your posts will get through. But posts that are just gibberish will be summarily flushed henceforth and you’ll be sent to join Clover Mark I over at the Clover Patch.

          • It really depends what some thinks “peaceful” methods are? If you were to take down a crooked cop then it would be justified but it’s not peaceful by definition. It’s the same as with a protest – for it to be truely peaceful it would be completely non-intrusive yet protests have to be intrusive to be successful, e.g. blocking streets, making noise, making bold accusastions, etc.

            • There you go… again.

              Ignorant (peaceful protest movements do work; just one example being the man who stood in front of the tank in Tiananman Square in China) and hyperbolic; tossing out childish straw man “arguments” ….

              It’d be sad if there weren’t so many millions just like you out there… who have (unfortunately) been granted the franchise.

          • Is an act of provocation peaceful by definition in the sense you’re trying get a violent response? I’m not saying it’s wrong but it is bold. It must grind your gears that the OWS are of a Socialist bent and are making the news. Or that Communist Revolutions have always found plenty followers to upend society.

            • Yes, Clover, it does grind my gears that so many people are useful idiots – amoral/immoral dupes who support communists and socialists and fascists thinking they’ll be able to “get theirs” at gun or bayonet point – but (just desserts) usually end up on the wrong end of the guns and bayonets.

  15. Come on guys. They’re just doing their jobs…

    Maybe there should be an “#Occupy Police Force” movement. Take all the unemployed whomevers, get them in shape, and take over all the positions. The tough guys will get sick of taking care of the hippies/whiners/pot heads, and they’ll keep moving on until it’s worth more to find a real job.

    • Come on guys. They’re just doing their jobs…

      Need I point out who else was “Just doing their jobs”? That’s about the biggest cop-out (so to speak) the world has ever seen.

      … hippies/whiners/pot heads…

      If cops continue to behave as they do today, I think you’ll see a lot of citizens responding with actions that you would never classify that way.

    • I think – I hope – Fritz was being facetious!

      Yeah, the “I am just doing my job” line carries no water with me. Not from cops, not from TSA cretins. Each of us has an obligation to not oppress our fellow human beings. If you choose to do so, you are morally culpable. I’d rather work an honest job as a McDonald’s fry chef than be a TSA creep or, frankly, a cop (these days). There was a time, years back, when I considered it. I liked the idea of going after, well, thugs. Then I thought about the reality of law enforcement and realized that much of what the cops do is thuggery. I wanted no part of threatening people who weren’t harming anyone else – for example, some guy with pot plants in his backyard or some mom “speeding” (but driving perfectly responsibly). Etc.

      Not me. No thanks.

    • Anything preceded with “come on guys” is basically guaranteed to either be some airhead girl(who invokes humor on accident) or a sign that everything afterward is total satire. Used to be, anyway. Maybe I’m getting old. My memes are out of date.

      • Maybe, maybe not. This is a serious topic in serious times. I can see why many of us, myself included, might misinterpret intent. Thank you for the clarification. Intent understood.

  16. Excellent advice Eric.

    Gate Rape: it not just for airline passengers anymore. The TSA has now put VIPR’s in our midst (on our insterstate highways, subway, bus and train stations). Smarting off to these anencephalic bottom feeders will guarantee you some type of criminal charge and detention. Don’t do it unless you really feel called to martyrdom.

    So, “Be as wise as the Serpent and as gentle as a dove.” Ghandi won with a non-violent approach and we can too.

    • This is commonly referred to in military field manuals as “occupation”. Yes–we are now occupied by a hostile force, namely the mafia that has taken over “our” government.

      • Actually Methyl, the Mafia is considerably more honorable than any government. But I digress; your point about a hostile occupying force is unfortunately very accurate. Years ago I purchased a copy of book entitled Military Government and Martial Law written by one Maj. Birkhimer who was a JAG attorney as I recall. The book was written in 1914 and detailed how the U.S. military goes about occupying a country. They attempt to do so “transparently”.

        It seems that after California became a territory there wasn’t enough military presence to secure the land so the constabulary was used as the occupying force. You may also recall a nasty little point of American history referred to as “Reconstruction”, where several of the former states were occupied by the U.S. military. The military became the police in that case.

        When, if ever, was “Reconstruction” (i.e. occupation) ever officially declared over? I posit that it never was declared “over” by legislation, presidential decree or otherwise. Under the Law of War (now, euphemistically called International Law) if a sovereign occupies a territory with its military, that territory is subject to the will of the sovereign (i.e. if I have more men and guns on your land than you do, I get to tell you what to do). That’s what you call “occupied”.

        There are U.S. military bases in all of the 50 states and on all of the territories. Police departments issue rank just like the military; captain, major, sergeant, corporal, etc. The U.S. flag flies above all the state flags and flies in our schools, court rooms, etc. If we take all this and put it together, it sure smells like military occupation by a hostile force to me. Naw…it can’t be…must just be my imagination.

        • Indeed,

          PS: Clover’s been excised, I think. The Mark I Clover.

          It sent in a huffy (and of course, poorly constructed) note whining about its endless emoting non sequiturs (I won’t call them posts) not getting through. I’d decided it was pointless; that he was a purely a disruptive element lowering the level of the discussion here. Disagreement I can handle – and welcome – provided it’s intelligent, factual and most of all, acknowledges when a point is made. But Clover’s just dumb – and I can’t take dumb. If it ever comes up with a coherent post, I’ll let it through. But it must also respond to points made in reply.

          It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again!

        • The old school Mafia certainly was!

          Apparently, they did not kill “civilians” – in particular women and children. And at least when they took your money, they did not harangue you with bromides about god and country. They just took your money. Honest theft, y’ know?

          • LOL Boothe, Eric! Right on Boothe–the Mafia has a code of honor. The US FedGov, not so much. My apologies to any mafiosi out there, no insult intended.

            And Eric–your “honest theft” reminds me of an excellent book a very fine and prescient political science professor once made me read:

            “Plunkitt of Tammany Hall”

            “Honest graft” was his motto.

    • So you hope to be like Gandhi and survive with the moral high ground while expecting others to risk life and limb advancing your cause?

      • Look, Clover – it won’t work.

        You’re not going to get anyone here to advocate violence. Tell your handlers. Maybe they can sub in a more talented – more subtle – agent provocateur.

      • Wow Gil, you really don’t give up do you? I’ll give you an A+ for persistence. I have never expected anyone to “risk life and limb” for me or for any cause. It is the free flow of ideas that changes a society for the better, not blood flowing in the streets. It is also the free flow of ideas that you and your ilk fear so much.

        I encourage people to learn how to use the constabulary’s and courts’ own laws and rules against them. Learn about the literal truth, so you can take their oath or affirmation and still answer their questions giving them nothing. Or simply don’t speak or cooperate with officials.

        As you’ve seen, non-aggressive approaches such as filming the illegitimate activities of police (or any other public officials) and spreading it far and wide on the internet shames them into backing down in many cases. If nothing else, you’ll have evidence for the lawsuit and most sheriff’s departments as well as small town police forces (or rather their political handlers) are scared to death of liability suits. It can literally bankrupt a small town and or make it impossible to get liability insurance.

        There are all sorts of things we can do to put sand in the meat grinder this criminal justice system has become. But violence is what the system does to us. We prevail by non-violently holding the moral high ground. We prevail with ideas, and an open forum and by not giving the system anything to gig us with.

        I used to think you don’t get it, but I think you do. You’re apparently part of that bureaucratic tax feeder class that believes people like Eric, Fritz, Methyl, Dom, Mithrandir, Coop and me should have our heads beaten in for non-compliance and free thinking. I’m glad you’re not my neighbor.

        • Do you think Gandhi’s followers had an easy time? No they literally risked life and limb. They were arrested, beaten and shot for their civil disobedience not simply ostracised. In other words, they didn’t dispense violence but they sure did get it yet they thought it was worth it.

          • Who said anything to that effect, Cloveroni?

            No one.

            We’re just calling you out on your endless, clumsy attempts to get someone to post something with violent connotations. Not gonna happen, mate.

            Try somewhere else, perhaps.

          • Actually Gil, by refusing to talk to a cop in this country, not consenting to a search or just quoting the Bill of Rights can get you roughed up, thrown in jail and get you a permanent arrest record. In some cases “contempt of cop” (i.e. what the cop perceives as “dissing” him / her) will get you badly beaten and even shot. The cop will get a paid vacation while his superiors and union come up with b.s. excuses to cover him. So there is real physical risk involved anytime you stand up to “the man” here in the USSA now.

            I have a friend who was pulled out of the front door of his house Saturday morning by the police, beaten up, cuffed, finger printed and locked up. His crime was refusing them entry without a search warrant. This young man weighs 120 pounds and three 200+ pound cops claim he resisted arrest against all of them. The whole thing is trumped up b.s. to intimidate him. They’ve already dropped his bond, released him within 24 hours, now all of the charges are “pending” and they won’t identify the “arresting” officers. Hmmm. I smell a rat.

            I’m going to help him fight this Gil. It’s one civil rights violation right after the other. Guess who’s shit list I’m about to go to the top of? So don’t sit there smugly in your little coffee house and lecture me about risk.

            I’ve squared off with the powers that be on more than one occasion. It’s cost me my job, I’ve had my life threatened and, yes, I have also simply been ostracized and investigated for standing up to ‘Authority’ and telling the truth. My wife and I were instrumental in the removal and arrest of one dirty cop the last place we lived. That’s non-violent action that won’t make you popular with the other tax feeders I assure you. What have you Gil ever personally done to advance the cause of Liberty?

            In fact Gil, I’ve asked you several times before to simply tell us what you do for a living and you don’t even have the balls to do that. So come on out of the closet. What’s your profession?

            Answer the two preceding simple questions or I’m done with you.

            • Great post, Boothe – and, I’m sorry to hear about your friend. Awful.

              I hope it turns out ok – and I’m glad it wasn’t worse. Can you even get into the heads of those cops? I can’t. I’m not a kung fu master like Dom or even an experienced bar fighter, but I am well over six feet and well over 200 pounds and pretty strong and can’t imagine a scenario where I’d get physical with a guy who was literally almost half my size (unless he had a gun or a knife and was actually attacking me). I wonder if the current cop screening process actually weeds out people who aren’t bullies and psychopaths?

          • Gee, Rric, if you were hiring a security guard you sure wouldn’t hire a wimp who’d hide and let looters take everything. By the same token no wimps should be able to come a cop. I guess you throw the word “bully” and “psychopath” mindlessly as to mean someone who defends different concepts from you. There are obvious police incidents where the cops should be arrested and jailed however I wouldn’t use a broad brush to tarnish all officers.

            • Clover – being the Clover that you are, I suppose – you cannot grasp the distinction between physically assaulting a person weaker/smaller than you, who has done you no harm, who is not a threat to you, and who is at your mercy (if you are a cop) just because you can or because it turns you on to dominate and brutalize people.. and – as you put it – …”let(ting) looters take everything.” That is, the difference between a bully/psychopath abusing people … and a person defending persons/property from thugs and thieves.

              Are your really that dumb?

LEAVE A REPLY