Civilian Interaction Training

79
3744
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

It’s not surprising that kids in government schools are taught the government’s point of view about pretty much  . . . everything.

Including “behavioral expectations” when interacting with armed government workers (i.e., the police).

There’s a new video not merely circulating in government schools but mandatory viewing for teenagers seeking the government’s permission to drive. It is titled Civilian Interaction Training, an interesting title given that armed government workers (assuming they are not actually in the military) are also civilians, their four-starred and campaign-hatted delusions to the contrary notwithstanding.

The video asserts a number of legally dubious and dangerous things – above and beyond the silly thing about cops not being “civilians,” despite all their buzzcut Hut! Hut! Hutting!

Perhaps the worst of these is the declaration that a person pulled over by an armed government worker should “do what the officer asks” and “just follow instructions.”

What about following the law?

The law is supposed to limit what the police can legally do – and protect the right of people to refuse to submit to illegal “instructions” which transcend the lawful limits of police authority.

The teenaged kids watching this flick aren’t told that they are under no legal obligation to “just do what the officer asks,” if it is an unlawful request. Much less what might constitute an unlawful “request”

They aren’t even told that they’re not legally obliged to answer questions posed by a cop.

Nor is the nature of police questioning explained to them.

They are told about their legal obligation to present a driver’s license upon demand, as well as vehicle registration and (in some states) proof of insurance.

But what about her right to remain silent?

Silence.

They are not told that while it may sometimes be advisable to banter with a cop – in order to attempt to establish rapport and (perhaps) wriggle out of a trumped-up ticket with just a warning – as a matter of law, they do not have to banter.

More to the point, they should avoid admitting.

The audience is not told that cops’ questions aren’t “friendly.” That they are designed to elicit incriminating responses. The viewers aren’t informed that anything they say which is incriminating can and will be held against them.

If you have teenaged kids, tell them this.

When a cop who pulls a driver over for “speeding” or some other traffic offense, he will almost always ask a deliberately leading question, such as: “Do you know why I pulled you over?” Or: “Do you know how fast you were driving”?

The purpose of such questions is to elicit a confession.

If your kid answers, “Yeah, I guess I was going a little fast” or “I was in a hurry to get home” – he’s just admitted guilt and provided the evidence which will be presented by the cop in court to convict him.

It’s something new drivers probably ought to be made aware of. Those who watched this video won’t be made aware – unless they’re reading this.

No word of explanation, either, about the inherently adversarial nature of a traffic stop. That a cop’s “sworn word” is considered admissible evidence while anything a “civilian” (that’s us) says to the contrary is “hearsay” and legally without weight.

The video should have explained to the kids watching it  that if they do not believe they committed a traffic infraction – or intend to fight it – they should admit to nothing.

They are legally required to pull over. And it is sound policy to  pull off the road safely, put the car in Park and shut off the engine. It is also smart to turn on the car’s interior light (if it’s night) and to sit quietly with hands visible and wait for the cop to come up to the window. The video goes into plenty of detail explaining all of that.

But when the cop asks: “Why do you think you’re being pulled over?” the non-incriminating reply is: “I’m sure you’ll let me know.”

The video doesn’t explain that.

If the cop asks: “Do you know how fast you were going”? the non-incriminating reply is: “The speed limit.”

This isn’t arguing with the cop. It is protecting your interests – as provided for by the law.

The kids aren’t told that, either.

They’re also not advised that they have the legal right to refuse a search of their vehicle and that it is legally sound to express this verbally, in order to establish for the record that they do not consent to the search. They’re not told that this may prevent a cop from rooting around in their car and that even if it doesn’t, a court may later toss out any evidence found during the search if it determines the rooting-around cop lacked probable cause to do so and didn’t have consent.

The kids should also know – but once again aren’t told – that if they do consent to a search which would not otherwise be legally valid (assuming no probable cause) and something illegal is found, it will be admissible as evidence.

The presumption of guilt – and expectation of “full cooperation,” without any discussion regarding the limits on what “cooperation” is legally required – pervades this ugly authoritarian flick.

The video doesn’t advise kids to know – and assert – their their legal rights.

It urges them to obey, unquestioningly.

Whether the law requires them to do so – or not.

. . .

Got a question about cars – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet (pictured below) in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $5 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

My latest eBook is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.  

 

 

 

Share Button

79 COMMENTS

  1. In many jurisdictions, officers have great leeway to arrest kids on the basis of that state’s welfare code rather than the penal code, that they’re “incorrigible” and in need of “intervention”.

    If your teenager is riding in a car with her friend, the cops may demand her “ID”, which she’s not legally required to produce, as even in “Stop and ID” states, there must be “criminal activity afoot” to justify the demand. But you can bet that your daughter’s refusal to grant the officer what he wants will prompt an immediate and decidedly negative response, and she’ll be lucky to not get a gratuitous beating, especially if the cop is a woman!

    • Hi ET,

      Unfortunately, it’s only us who will be herded into automated cars. Not them – including their enforcers. I took me a long tie to understand what this is really all about. Now that I do, everything is as obvious and predictable as the tides coming in.

    • The coprouches (sic) will become tow truck drivers so they can remove the high tech roadblocks that the self-driving cars will become with the regularity of 404 errors.

    • The pigs will just have to press a button when they want for summon you (Maybe you’re wearing the wrong color shirt on the wrong day) and “your” car will lock you in and pull obediently over to the side of the road- or speed you right to the local sty.

  2. Laws are for stupid people. The general idea is that society is better off if we corral all the stupid people into jails. “if you show me where the weed is I’ll let you go”. Stupid: “here it is”

  3. > The audience is not told that cops’ questions aren’t “friendly.” That they are designed to elicit incriminating responses. The viewers aren’t informed that anything they say which is incriminating can and will be held against them. If you have teenaged kids, tell them this.

    I clicked to see the comments on YouTube and, guess what – comments were disabled for this video. I guess people have to come to your website, Eric, for countervailing views.

    • Hi Larry,

      This seems to be the trend – disabling comments when those comments aren’t orthodox amen’ing of the Official Point of View. I can remember – some of those reading this will, too – when even MSM outlets allowed free-for-all comments. Often, the comments vehemently disagreed with the pabulum of the article – and so the comments were blocked.

      The pabulum continues.

      • **” some of those reading this will, too – when even MSM outlets allowed free-for-all comments.”**

        I sure remember that, Eric! It was once the norm- anonymous comments on most news sites.

        It was great, as the readers often corrected or updated the stories, with local, in-person real-people observations and experience(e.g. a story about a middle-aged woman being hit by a car in broad daylight, leaving out info which could lead the reader to conclude the accident was almost surely the driver’s fault, would be commented on by locals mentioning the fact that the woman in question was some crazy lady who’d wander the streets and jut out into traffic…)

        And it also gave one an accurate idea of what others were thinking.

        Then they started censoring the comments, so that anything non-PC was deleted or censored; so one would get the idea that everyone reading was of only one opinion.

        Then they’d morph to a “registered user” or subscriber-only format…

        Then to a Faceboob or Ghoul-gull+ account format…

        And now many have just disabled reader comments entirely- unashamedly displaying their contempt for reality and truth and the opinions of their readers…and yet people continue to read such sites/publications.

        • Well-said, Nunz – that’s exactly it.

          Depressing, isn’t it? The Internet was – briefly – anarchic. No central orthodoxy enforcement; people could freely exchange views and info.

          Not anymore.

      • Yes, the pablum stream continues, but it’s becoming clearer that fewer and fewer people are swallowing it willingly – especially from Establishment sources, one of which BoobTube is increasingly becoming.

  4. What the cop is looking for, and probably doesn’t know much about, is joinder. When he asks for driver license and all the rest he is seeking to “join” you to the “driver” on the license. A “driver” is a “person” or a legal fiction and you are not a legal fiction so he is trying to set you up as surety for the fiction, or at the very least, agent for service and process, which is a slightly better position. The charge (ticket) is never on you, it is on the “driver.” They want you to pay the bills of the fiction. The cop cannot charge a man with a statutory infraction because the statutes only apply to persons and he would be converting a right-the right to travel on the public roads- to a state granted privilege-using the public byways for profit, or commerce.

    It has been suggested that the best approach is total silence. Do not give the officer a driver license. If he insists ask, Can the information on that piece of paper be used against me? He will say, You betcha! “Then I am exercising my fifth amendment right not to incriminate myself.” This puts him in the precarious position of violating your rights for which he is personally liable.

    Of course, when you are dealing with morons it could all go south very quickly but at least you got your licks in to be used later in court.

    Everything in the legal system is about making you pay the debt of the fiction. If you deny them joinder they must pay. That is why they are so aggresive, they don’t want the extortion racket exposed.

    • [Sigh] OHhhhh….not this crap again…..[sigh]

      Rog, the average pig has an IQ of 103 or less, and would be utterly bewildered about the scenario you described. They are trained (like chimps) to carry out orders; and would no more understand the fictitious legal theories of which you speak, than the aforementioned chimp.

      They do what they do because they are mercenaries who consciencelessly follow orders because they don’t care, and because they have the power to do so.

      • Nunzio, yes the cops are less than average, trying to be nice here, but they know they can’t violate your rights, and if they don’t, they will soon find out.

        Fictitious legal theories? Until you have done the work I and many others have done on this subject It would be wise to refrain from uninformed comments. Do the research, then call it what you will.

        • Rog, I know that people such as yourself do have the noblest intentions, but I’m just trying to hammer home two points:

          The theories which you preach are completely fictitious- You can NOT prove them by citing any law or code- only by stringing together a bunch of old and disjointed citations of things which don’t have any relevance to things to which you try to apply them.

          And b) Even if they were true, it doesn’t matter, because thugs and tyrants, such as rule this country today, rule by force- not law. You can not get them to even abide by the Constitution- much less random quotes from a few hundred years ago which have no legal authority and or were superceded, or don’t even mean what you think they do.

          Not to mention that when you cite things like the UCC [Which I’m assuming you do- as it seems to go with the territory- but correct me if I’m wrong] YOU are in fact enterinmg into a contract by adhesion which would not normally even apply to you- and which is not even a law, unless a particular jurisdiction has adopted it or a code based upon it- and actually voluntarily giving up some of your personal rights.

          People who quote this freeman/strawman/legal fiction crap don’t even realize what they’re messing with. It’s a scam! The people who promote it claim that it is a way to regain liberty- but in fact, those who use it spend a lot of time in jail- and in front of judges who thus get to have ultimate authority over them.

          When you can get them to obey the clear black & white laws which are spelled out on parchment and DO apply to them- then let me know, and we can talk. But until then, the disjointed rantings of madmen who pretend to know the law; and who proclaim freedom but cause everyone who follows them to end up in jail, are just taking your money, and keeping you from the simple truths.

            • How is that relevant to his comment? No matter what state any of us live in, it’s ruled by some form of anarcho-tyranny that pays no attention whatsoever to the law.

            • Hi Rog,

              I’m very sympathetic to the arguments you make and you may even be technically correct. It doesn’t matter. “The Law” (rather than the law) is the only relevant consideration. “The Law” is the opinion of government workers; decisions, statutes, regulations – case law. And not even those things, necessarily. It is simply whatever the person with the gun – or wearing the robe – says it is.

              And AGWs will follow “The Law” which requires driver’s license, signature and all the rest. You can quote chapter and verse – you’ll still get the ticket, or the cuffs. And the judge will follow the same protocol.

              Those who dissected the income tax – and seem to be arguably right on the facts – went to federal prison nonetheless.

              The Second Amendment clearly enshrines the right of individuals to keep and bear arms – yet you will be arrested and caged in several states and cities, etc., if you exercise that clearly stated legal right.

              Etc.

              • Eric, I understand that most folks unfamiliar with this stuff are going to go with what they see. They see tyranny. Quatloos and Snopes give the impression that these “legal arguments” presented by various people do not work. That is untrue. There are MANY successes by gobs of people, but they are not published. You can’t find them. Why is that?

                Back in 1868 congress redefined the word “person” to mean a corporation, trust, LLC, etc. Why did they do that? The European banking powers were at it again, after Jackson defeated them some decades earlier, trying to gain control of the Republic. Operating under the tenants of the treaty of Verona, they were engaged in a coup to stop representative government in the former colonies. They succeeded. They incorporated the municipal government of DC and called it the UNITED STATES. Later, at the council of governors, under FDR they convinced the states to become corporate franchises under the UNITED STATES. Corporations operate in Admiralty law, the law of the sea, law merchant. Why? because corporations are legal entities. Admiralty was “brought onto the land” under this scheme and could only deal with legal entities.

                They had to find a way to apply that to the people living in The United States of America. I suggest you read what Mandel House had to say to Woodrow Wilson about this: https://freedompool.org/house%20quote.html
                Through registration of the birth event they created a trust titled JOHN HENRY DOE. Now, do the rules of the English language permit proper names to be styled that way? No, they do not. So this thing JOHN HENRY DOE can only be a corporation, or a dead Man’s estate according to admiralty law, common law does not recognize legal entities.

                Why do you suppose every bill, subscription, communication from government, license etc. you receive/have is styled all caps? Is that YOUR name? No, your name is styled John Henry Doe. JOHN HENRY DOE is NOT you. Have you ever wondered about that?

                The courts are administering a trust, the trust JOHN HENRY DOE, and they are making the presumption that you have agreed to be surety for that trust by answering to the name JOHN HENRY DOE. But that would require a valid contract saying you agreed to that. Instead of a valid contract they call it an adhesion contract, which is generally recognized as an unconscionable contract, in other words, no contract at all. The Driver license is an adhesion contract and there is no valid contract where you agreed to be surety or agent for service and process for that office (that’s what a driver is). In addition to that nonsense is the matter of identification presented to get a DL. You used the birth certificate which does not identify the holder, it only identifies a US citizen, JOHN HENRY DOE, the name that appears on the birth certificate,which is another legal entity. So you were joined to a legal entity without your knowledge and became surety for that entity.

                The fact that most people do not know about this is no excuse. They are operating under admiralty and you think they are operating under common law, the law of the land, or law of flesh and blood Men And Women. They are speaking a language you don’t understand. It’s no wonder you feel helpless. You have no idea what’s going on. Neither does the cop, for that matter. That’s why you shut your mouth when dealing with them because they don’t know what they are actually doing. If they they knew they were enforcing corporate policy, some of them might actually object.

                It’s not my fault, or theirs, that you haven’t educated yourself about this. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. I give up on Nunzio because his eyes and ears are closed. But you are smarter than that.

                • **”There are MANY successes by gobs of people, “**

                  Well, maybe if your idea of “worked” is spending time in jail; having your property impounded, and spending months battling the Beast just to eventually beat a charge for some minor infraction (It doesn’t work at all for major ones)….

                  If you want to see people who spend the most time in jail and in courts, just look at the people who practice this junk- including the gurus who promote it. They are actually LESS free than the average clueless person.

                  Even George Gordon, who took a right to travel (drive without a license or registration) case to the Supreme Court, ended up hiring somebody to drive for him- because for all of his years of legal battling, he accomplished nothing.

                  **”Back in 1868 congress redefined the word “person” to mean a corporation”**

                  You’re a little confused on that. You have it backwards- they said that a corporation [When a person or group of people form a corporation by applying to the state to form such] can be construed to be a person- i.e. that such a corporation when formed, shall have the same rights and legal protections as a person or natural human being.

                  Such matters are how these gurus fool those who are ignorant of history; the law; and reality- by using semantics- just as they do by quoting the UCC, which is not even a law, but merely a model of BUSINESS law, which can be adopted by states and locales in part or full, or modified to fit their desires- but is in no way a universal law- but is only applicable if adopted by a particular jurisdiction, AND then is only binding upon businesses, unless someone voluntarily subjects themselves to it by adhesion- which is foolish, since it would further limit their rights, and impose obligations upon them which they would otherwise not be subject to- but THAT is exactly what these freemen gurus have people doing!

                  If you want to be free(r), understand that: tyrants are not bounds by words on paper, even when those words are legally sound and binding upon them (such as the Constitution); That a slave does not receive justice by appealing to a council of the master’s employees; that the only practical way to avoid the injustice and force of a tyrant is to avoid confrontation with him and his evil minions, by flying below the radar; and that the only true way to escape the insanity of an Orwellian high-tech police state full of people who love Big Brother, is to physically remove yourself from it’s jurisdiction (as some of us are indeed working on at this very moment).

                • “There are MANY successes by gobs of people, but they are not published. You can’t find them. Why is that?”

                  Nobody is doubting there are many successes (and failures) the problem is the hassle. If you stay in some rural county it may be possible to wage such a battle and eventually be left alone until the next new hire cop sees you. Therein lies the rub. The numerous jurisdictions, cops, prosecutors, and judges one needs to wear down and pound the facts into even if you won every time out is a monumental investment in time, hassle, effort, and resources.

                  It is simply not practical to fight on that level when everybody in the entire system from the cops to the clerks at the court are convinced that “driving is a privilege” and driving is what a person does in his own personal travels.

                  Routing all those efforts into deprogramming people and maybe getting the schools out of government hands would be far more effective.

                  Our self proclaimed “betters” failed in their efforts until they grabbed the schools and media to convince people of things that aren’t true. The solution is to attack them there. It’s a war for minds.

                • (((There are MANY successes by gobs of people, )))

                  Well, maybe if your idea of “worked” is spending time in jail; having your property impounded, and spending months battling the Beast just to eventually beat a charge for some minor infraction (It doesn’t work at all for major ones)….

                  If you want to see people who spend the most time in jail and in courts, just look at the people who practice this junk- including the gurus who promote it. They are actually LESS free than the average clueless person.

                  Even George Gordon, who took a right to travel (drive without a license or registration) case to the Supreme Court, ended up hiring somebody to drive for him- because for all of his years of legal battling, he accomplished nothing.

                  (((Back in 1868 congress redefined the word “person” to mean a corporation)))

                  You’re a little confused on that. You have it backwards- they said that a corporation [When a person or group of people form a corporation by applying to the state to form such] can be construed to be a person- i.e. that such a corporation when formed, shall have the same rights and legal protections as a person or natural human being.

                  Such matters are how these gurus fool those who are ignorant of history; the law; and reality- by using semantics- just as they do by quoting the UCC, which is not even a law, but merely a model of BUSINESS law, which can be adopted by states and locales in part or full, or modified to fit their desires- but is in no way a universal law- but is only applicable if adopted by a particular jurisdiction, AND then is only binding upon businesses, unless someone voluntarily subjects themselves to it by adhesion- which is foolish, since it would further limit their rights, and impose obligations upon them which they would otherwise not be subject to- but THAT is exactly what these freemen gurus have people doing!

                  If you want to be free(r), understand that: tyrants are not bounds by words on paper, even when those words are legally sound and binding upon them (such as the Constitution); That a slave does not receive justice by appealing to a council of the master’s employees; that the only practical way to avoid the injustice and force of a tyrant is to avoid confrontation with him and his evil minions, by flying below the radar; and that the only true way to escape the insanity of an Orwellian high-tech police state full of people who love Big Brother, is to physically remove yourself from it’s jurisdiction (as some of us are indeed working on at this very moment).

                  • Thanks for the back-up, Nunz!

                    This “sovereign citizen” stuff sound great but carry no weight in court or with cops. They’ll just roll their eyes as the slap on the cuffs.

                    • Eric, sigh. Believe what you will.

                      And by the way, a sovereign citizen is an oxymoron.

                      Nunz, the UCC has been adopted by all the corporate states under UNIDROIT. It has nothing to do with you or me.

                      “that such a corporation when formed, shall have the same rights and legal protections as a person or natural human being.” why do you think person is separated from natural human being by the word “or?” A person is a capacity or status, thus a corporation is a juridical “person.” Admiralty deals with those “persons.” Statutory law is admiralty law. I can’t help that you just don’t get it.

                      If you guys want to continue taking it up the ass because you refuse to acknowledge the swindle, be my guest.

                    • Hi Rog,

                      It’s not about belief. I don’t dispute that your arguments may have some validity – and I certainly sympathize with them. It doesn’t matter. If you get pulled over by a cop and don’t have a license or refuse to sign the ticket, you will be arrested. Maybe – after much expense and hassle – you will be able to persuade a judge and be set free/have the charges dropped.

                      But meanwhile, you’ve been cuffed and caged and spent how much time and money on lawyers?

                      And then – as Brent has explained – they’ll put you through the same drill again.

                      I’m sorry, but your advice is bad advice.

                      Like the advice I got from a guy who sent me a book about the illegality of the income tax and how to not pay any. Good luck with that when you’re hauled into court by the IRS or they just seize your stuff and auction it off to pay what you think you don’t “owe”…

                      Anyone familiar with my work knows how I feel about the morality of government force applied to people peaceful people – but it’s neither here nor there as regards what government will do to you if you are caught not abiding by its rules – as it defines them.

                      A really good example for purposes of this discussion is the clear, unambiguous language of the 4th Amendment. Quote it to the cop at the random, probable cause-free checkpoint and see how far it gets you. After your arrest for refusing to comply, see how much weight it carries with the judge.

                      We have to live in and deal with the real world.

                      And in this real world, the government is the arbiter of its own authority.

                    • Eric, on a Christian forum I used tio participate on years ago, a lot of the others were into this crapola.

                      It was sad- The amount of time they’d waste- and virtually always lose their cases- and then come back for more, always saying “Yeah, but now I see what I did wrong, if I would have said ‘Abracadabra’ instead of ‘voila’ I would have won… Oh well, next time!!”- LOL. Their lives were consumed by that stuff- they’d waste 6 months or a year of their life, thinking that spending time in jail and days in court was somehow preferable to not having a license plate on their car…

                      Some of them were even ordered to undergo psychiatric testing, because of the absurdity of their legal arguments and use of semantics when asked simple questions. You can understand why I exited that forum quickly!

                      The best thing though, was a Youtube video I watched a while back, of one of these guys at his initial hearing in court…. The judge let him say his piece and tried to reason with him for a while, as the guy, kept asking the judge if he was refering to [his name] “the man” or [his name] the “person” [or some such semantic].

                      Finally, the judge got disgusted and sent him to jail to await his upcoming trial- to which the poor schlepp protested “But I am not [his name] the person!”- to which the judge responded: “Well if you see [name] ‘the person’ while you’re in jail, tell him he has a court date next week!” LOL. To which the whole courtroom burst into laughter! And even though you and I would agree with the underlying principle this guy was trying to fight for, even we’d have to laugh at the method by which he was doing it! Even I had lost any sympathy for the dude- you could only imagine how the typical jurist would view him.

                    • (((“that such a corporation when formed, shall have the same rights and legal protections as a person or natural human being.” why do you think person is separated from natural human being )))

                      Rog….sorry my friend, but I’m beginning to think that either you have a reading comprehension problem, or you are being purposefully duplicitous.

                      “SUCH A CORPORATION WHEN FORMED…”

                      Yes. Did you form a corporation? Then that does not apply to you any more so than the UCC ,because you do not own a corporation; and if you do form a corporation, then it applies to your coproration and NOT you personally.

                      Again, it is merely saying that an incorporated entity shall be treated the same in the eyes of the law as a natural person/human being-

                      It says “natural person” to distinguish a real live flesh and vlood human being from the artificial entity that is created when one incorporates- it does NOT say that all people are somehow now automatically “corporations”!

                      This is exactly what I meant when I said how these ‘freemen’ gurus use semantics and legalese to FOOL those who are unfamiliar with legal lingo.

                      They’re like deceitful preachers: They set up a pre-conceived idea, and then use a text to “prove” that idea, even though it in-fact does not support their pre-conceived idea. But when those who are unfamiliar with the subject at hand approach those texts with the pre-conceived idea already established, and see words and phrases which sound familiar because they were used by the guru/preacher, they assume that it means what the guru said it does….even though it is actually clearly saying something different- and had they merely read the text without the pre-conceived idea already firmly established in their mind, they never would have come to the conclusions which they have been made to believe.

                    • Most AGWs have been schooled on the “sovereign citizen” thing and have developed retorts designed to intimidate and mock.

                      It’s almost they welcome someone bringing that stuff up.

                      To confuse and turn the tables, you might ask of the AGW “Are you one of those sovereign citizen cops I’ve been hearing about?”

                    • Eric, what I want to know, is at what age can I officially claim the designation of ‘coot’ [not necessarily old]?

                      Or does one first have to have cooties in order to be a coot?

              • I’ve been laughed at in court because I brought up the technical details of the law and what it refers to, in that case the MUTCD which is an engineering document I understand but they don’t even recognize exists.

                The final straw was when in admin court where I attempted to present the written law which was different from what they were enforcing and the “judge” angrily refused to read it.

                Sure we could have appealed higher and higher but there’s time and cost. Then after winning eventually been no better off when the next cop came by to write a ticket.

          • Hence why in ANY interaction with law enforcement, record, Record, RECORD! At best, the cop will humor you while you spout off at what you THINK is the law, and do what (s)he wants ANYWAY. The typical attitude of an LEO is that (s)he is the real-life incarnation of the fictional “Judge” (and in the movie, jury, jailer, and, at times, executioner) Joseph Dredd, e.g., “I am…the LAW!”. And said LEO will typically not hesitate to apply the “law” as (s)he deems it on the spot…knowing full well that likely, at worst, a verbal reprimand, which will be contested and not allowed to remain on the officer’s personnel file by his union.
            The best thing to do is to say NOTHING, beyond giving name, address and DOB if requested, and, if DRIVING, your Driver’s License, vehicle registration, and “Proof” of Insurance. In most states, you do NOT have to produce ID upon demand, save in the relatively few “Stop and ID” ones, and even then ONLY if reasonably suspected of a crime. It goes w/o saying that save you’re a minor or on DUI probation, you don’t have to submit to a so-called “roadside sobriety” test, which are scientifically bogus and designed strictly to give the officer probable cause to effect a DUI arrest.

            The entire reason to record, of course, is that, shocker, cops at times LIE. They will say you gave consent to search, or that you threatened them, or claim you said whatever that gives them probable cause to arrest and/or inflict a beating. You want the TRUTH on video, preferably already upload to the “Cloud” so that in event they seize your phone and “lose” it, or simply smash it to bits in front of you, the last thing the court will see, besides the cop’s boot or baton smashing the phone, is that they’re LYING.

        • The cops don’t even know what rights actually are. Judges don’t even concern themselves with the written law, they are concerned with the priesthood of the legal profession and feathering their own nests.

          • Morning, Brent!

            The worst aspect – well, one of them – is that law enforcers frequently do not know the law (forget rights). Yet they have the power to enforce non-law and if we object or attempt to defend ourselves, it is “resisting.” Sure, you may get some degree of justice eventually – assuming the damage from the beating isn’t permanently crippling, you didn’t get shot or spend a few years in prison….

            • As a bicyclist I have had a few incidents of cops enforcing their made up laws. Even one as a motorist. There is no law in this country any more. It’s all force. Even the written laws are enforced so selectively they cease to be nothing more than arbitrary force as well. If they want you they simply selectively enforce something and if you manage not to give them something there they will just make something up.

              • Amen, Brent!

                As I said in an earlier comment- which for some reason is not showing up- being censored by Turdpress- Tyrants are not restrained by mere words on paper. They rule by force, and any appeal to “law” is merely to lend an air of legitimacy to what they do, in the eyes of the simple, or to further constrain us- as in convincing a jury that they must convict us for transgressing some made-up contrivance or technicality.

  5. We all instinctively know, AGWs will tell their own children to completely ignore this monstrosity of a propaganda film: “Son, when dealing with cops, you keep your mouth shut and call ME.”

  6. I was all for this when I first heard of it until I quickly realized it is not the ACLU or any human rights organization but rather pigs leading the classes, and not in the interest of looking out for kids rights but to brainwash them into yielding to authority without question just like their clover parents already teach them to.

  7. The “law” is now basically anything the LEO says. And if said LEO decides to molest kids or shoot a person at point-blank for no reason, then the worst that’ll happen is that (s)he will just get a slap on the wrist. In other words, an LEO uniform now serves as an unlimited get-out-of-jail-free card.

    This country is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY overdue for another revolution.

    • The late William Norman Grigg used to write quite a lot about cops abusing their power. I remember he had a couple of examples which horrified me.

      In one case, a mentally ill, deaf man was crossing the street and some AGW’s behind him were yelling at him to stop and put his hands up. Being deaf, he didn’t comply. Not complying is aggression, so the AGW’s killed him because not complying is equivalent to attacking officers. There were no murder charges, just administrative leave.

      The other one was that an AGW pulled a woman over for speeding. Him being an AGW with no consequences for bad behavior, and her being a woman, naturally he raped her. She defended herself by hitting him. Fast forward a bit, and she’s on trial for assaulting an officer. In her defense, she had the gaul to say that she was defending herself against rape. The AGW’s union lawyer actually, in all seriousness, said that a civilian has no right to resist an officer’s instructions, like rape, and must comply. Then, if they feel they’ve been treated unjustly, they can file a complaint, and the police department would investigate those allegations.

      Pretty soon, AGW’s will be showing up at weddings demanding prima nocta.

    • Largely thanks to the ignorance of We the People.
      “The spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may become persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated that the time for fixing every essential right, on a legal basis, is while our rulers are honest, ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will be heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.”
      Thomas Jefferson

  8. My kids will know not to converse with swine well before whatever the driving age is in 16-18 years. This shit is mandatory in Texas* based on the senate bill I am reading. (Keep telling yourself Texas is a free state….) https://www.texasgateway.org/resource/flashing-lights-senate-bill-30
    https://tea.texas.gov/About_TEA/News_and_Multimedia/Correspondence/TAA_Letters/Implementation_of_Senate_Bill_(SB)_30,_Community_Safety_Education_Act/
    Also note in the bill that the passing of this ‘test’ will go on their academic transcript.

    Also passed into law here in Prison State Texas is the move over for fascist light… whoops I meant flashing lights if they are pulled over. Why not pull over for every person on the side of the road? Are State Porkers more valuable than us regular peons.

    • This “move over” law is pretty much becoming universal. Here The People’s Republic of North Carolina you have to move over for “first responders”. Even spell check doesn’t recognize “responders” as a word, yet we peons are to know what they are.

      But, like wearing a helmet on a motorcycle, it’s a good idea to move over for someone on the side of the road unless you can give aid. I always assume someone will open a door, step from in front of the vehicle, who knows. It’s better to err on the side of caution. But, the attitude is, you MUST do it for the protection of GovCo employees (unlike Eric I don’t refer to them as “workers” as that implies a positive productive use of human action which rarely, if ever, applies to our GovCo Overlords)

      We now live in a world where everything will either be mandated or banned…depending on the whims of the Parasite Class

      • This mandated or banned paradigm has replaced morality and conscience!

        You can kill someone, but as long as you’re not “doing anything illegal”, it’s perfectly fine [The pigs do it all the time]- but if you harm no one at all, but are in transgression of some stupid law, well then, you are a terrible miscreant!

        That is what is so scary about this civilian interaction propaganda- not so much the actual propaganda that it promotes- because anyone so concerned with any vestige of preserving liberty would be incensed by such, and or see right through it- but rather, that it creates a mindset for those who don’t care- so that when a pig blows some harmless person away or brutally abuses them, the juries, who are made up of those who don’t care about liberty and who have seen the propaganda, will merely say “The victim should have just done what he was told, instead of trying to exert his rights, as we were all told to do. After all, who does he think he is? We are all expected to behve that way; why should he be exempted?!”.

        Of course, it will never cross their minds that the victim was only trying to maintain what is supposed to be legally guaranteed to him; and that it is the pig who is being exempted from the expectation that HE of all people should be following the law, and ensuring the proper and fair treatment of others- but instead, can initiate violence against someone when they have not initiated violence- and in fact be exempted from any consequences of having done so.

        But for the victim, all they feel is “He was not following orders! He got what he deserved, comrade!”.

        • Well said, Nunzio. I used to think jury nullification would work but soon realized it order for that to happen you have to have a thinking populace.

    • Largely thanks to the ignorance of We the People.
      “The spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may become persecutor, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated that the time for fixing every essential right, on a legal basis, is while our rulers are honest, ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will be heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.”
      Thomas Jefferson

  9. I lucked out because the last time i got pulled over i really didnt know why he did. Claimed i didn’t have a seat belt when it was on me when he got to the window. My word vs his word i had to pay a $10 fine. POS! I realized early on cops where just the bully thugs in highschool who now have legal right to keep on bullying.

  10. I agree with almost everything in this article except the part about not responding when the officer asks you what you think you were pulled over for. My very limited experience with this is that I told the officer who pulled me over exactly what I did wrong. He asked me why and I just told him that I had a momentary lapse in judgment. He didn’t give me a ticket for anything after verifying my license and insurance. Of course, I am a woman so maybe that makes a difference. But if I get pulled over near the border for having done nothing wrong, I will simply refuse to answer any questions. And I will never ever voluntarily agree to a search – even though I have nothing to hide. It is a matter of principle.

    • Hi Krista,

      Some of this is definitely situation dependent. For example: If I think there’s a shot I might be able to talk my way out of a ticket – the cop seems to be a normal person – I may attempt conversation. This sometimes works. I also always start the interaction by presenting my concealed carry permit and advising the cop whether I’m armed. This has saved me more than once from a ticket – and recently. I have a rant coming about this. Stay tuned!

      • Hi Eric and Krista, I just got a damned ticket 3 weeks ago. In Missouri, they passed a fatwa that cities with highways which are at least 3 lanes wide can prohibit trucks from using the far left lane. The reason used was that a small percentage of trucks can’t maintain the speed limit while climbing hills in the left lane.
        Most truck drivers try to get back into a right lane in such a circumstance, but sometimes traffic will not allow it. There was already a law about slow traffic keeping right, but that law wasn’t being enforced at all, so the clovers created a different law for the coproaches to enforce!
        A car driver can legally drive slow in that lane, but a truck cannot be in that lane even if he can maintain the speed limit. That is unjust!
        Some of you car drivers might not know this: but most truck drivers nowadays stay in the middle lane while driving through cities because driving in the right lane is very risky. Many of today’s car drivers do not seem to know that they are supposed to find a gap in the highway traffic to merge into, and adjust their acceleration appropriately. Many of them expect the traffic already on the highway to make room for them instead. They do not even look over their shoulder before making that merge. Truck drivers want to avoid crashing into them, so they stay in the middle lane, including the slow trucks!
        My truck was empty. After following the slow trucks in the only passing lane allowed for trucks for several miles, I got in the left lane, passed 2 trucks while going the speed limit, and returned to the center lane. Passing on the right wasn’t an option due to upcoming intersections.
        A county coproache pulled me over and gave me a ticket. I was polite to him, but that did not matter in the least. His county wanted to rob truck drivers, and that is what he did.
        I called around to find out my chances on fighting out this one in court. In this state, tickets are paid to a collection center. I would have to send the ticket in with a request for a court date in order to get one. The court I would have had to deal with was 100+ miles away from home, and the court date would have required me to take a day off of work. I called an attorney specialising in CDL tickets in that metropolitan area, and he told me that the odds of my getting that ticket overturned in that particular county was slim. I would have had to take a day off of work and pay him $375 to represent me in court. The cost of the ticket was $107, and no loss of a work day. Guess which option I chose! God I hate coproaches and the state!

  11. re this: But when the cop asks: “Why do you think you’re being pulled over?” the non-incriminating reply is: “I’m sure you’ll let me know.”

    I would strongly recommend not saying this. If the cop interprets your tone of voice as being insufficiently subservient, this could lead to a beatdown or worse.

    These are the only words I will say to a traffic cop: “Respectfully, officer, I do not wish to answer any questions and I do not consent to searches.”

    Period.

    Had that happen a few years back when some county mounties pulled me over. Had to repeat those exact words a second time before they realized I wasn’t going to cooperate in establishing guilt, and gave me the ticket and let me exit the encounter with armed and dangerous members of an organized criminal gang.

    • The only thing I ever say to any government agent, whether local, state, or federal, when questioned is “I don’t answer questions and I do not consent to a search.” Period.

      When stopped while driving of course I do produce my papers, which the armed thugs will find are in order. If not driving I refuse to provide ID. (Normally I don’t even carry ID if not driving.)

      If you have a cell phone or other camera on hand that can record the encounter it is best to do so.

      https://copblock.org
      https://donttalktocops.com

    • I think it can be a little more nuanced than that. If your interaction begins with your stating your refusal to answer questions and not consent to a search, a more reasonable LEO will almost certainly interpret that as confrontational and possibly disrespectful, and you almost certainly will end up with a ticket. It’s better to be friendly and answer any questions honestly without self-incriminating, at least until you’ve determined just who it is you’re dealing with. Sometimes a good officer will only give you a warning if they feel you weren’t being aggressive or reckless, and if you determine that you’re just the target of a mulcting you haven’t confessed anything before you figured out their motive. Be friendly, but firm.

      • Spaz, the chances of not getting a ticket if pulled over these days is almost nil. And even if that weren’t the case, it is more important to guard your legal rights, because you never know what Officer Friendly might be thinking- and your guard is down or you don’t protect yourself thinking you may get out of a $100 ticket, you may in-fact be incriminating yourself in a far more serious matter which the pig is working on trumping up, but of which you had no idea was in the offing.

        It’s not a good bet to trade your right to not answer questions, for the slim chance of avoiding a ticket, when the consequences for doing so may be greater than the ticket you think you have a chance of avoiding.

        Also, showing the pig that you are aware of your rights often goes a long way. It can put them on notice that you will not be easily tricked, and that you likely know how to use the legal system- so that they will be more inclined to watch their step.

        And besides, I’d rather take the ticket, than play kissy-ass, even if I were assured that the pig would not ticket me if I played kissy-ass. Displaying confidence and conviction often goes further than sucking-up and heaping insincere respect on those who deserve to be despised. And to the real dick pigs…it won’t matter either way- they’ll just do what they want to do.

        Pig: “Where are you going?” (!!!)
        “Am I suspected of having committed a crime?
        Pig:”I’ll ask the questions”
        “I’ll exercise my right to remain silent”.

        • Hey Nunzio,
          I definitely don’t mean to let your guard down, or to grovel. A hardass who is determined to ticket you for profit is going to issue you a citation regardless of how you handle the situation; likewise, if you try to kiss ass it’s going to be pretty obvious and you’re still getting that ticket. However, I think it’s a smart move to tell an officer that you don’t know why they pulled you over, it’s non-incriminating and by the time you’ve got their response you’re going to know just who it is you’re dealing with and can act accordingly.

          This actually just happened to me on Tuesday when I got pulled over for “cutting an officer off in traffic and not using a turn signal.” I had no idea why I was being pulled over by an undercover vehicle and said so outright. I could tell by the time I answered his first question he wasn’t just trying to mulct me so I answered his questions honestly and got off with a warning. Conversely, the previous time I got pulled over for speeding I knew right away that the guy was after that money and refused to answer any further questions to avoid self-incrimination, although it still cost me a couple hundred dollars. It’s situational awareness.

          • Oh, I understand, and do agree with you there, Spaz. I was just taking it a little further (I tend to get carried away… :D).

            Around here, one might even still have a chance- depending on the species of pig. Local pig, might still be an almost normal person; State Pooper though, not a chance!

    • I asked “why did you pull me over” He said “no headlights” I said “its 6pm, broad daylight (as I’m taking a picture of the sun) and you are a liar. I’m not answering any of your questions.
      4 hours later, after ten other cars arriving and dogs and such, I was allowed to leave BUT – now the ticket reads “no headlights, no turn signal, speeding” which were ALL LIES!!! Of course the cop didn’t show up in court. So yeah, if they ask you to suck em off, do it, unless you want to die.

    • Since the bastards can invent “probable cause” to pull anyone over at any time, traffic stops have become their fishing expeditions of choice to randomly gain access to people and their mobile property, so that the fuckers can have a field day consisting of everything from checking for warrants, to discovering [gasp!] drugs. If they can’t get any of the “biggies” on ya, then they can at least generate some revenue by finding some nonsense “violations” to ticket you for, or maybe really hiot the jackpot and do a civil asset forfeiture.

      Funny how over the course of a few years, they’ve gone full-circle from Miranda warnings in which they informed you of your rights…to these propaganda films, where they trick you out of them.

      • This is truly some Orwellian shit. Every red blooded turd here in Texas will take it sitting down though because I see so many Police State flag stickers on their vehicles here.

        • It’s all the same, Brazos- all over this effed-up country; and all over the world, where ever tyranny exists. The dumb sheep love their captors. Tyranny of the modern level would not be possible if that were not true- but because it is true, tyranny on a grand scale flourishes- whether it be in TX or CA or NY, or North Korea or Nazi Germany…. And as long as we have people who are willing to follow orders, whether it be to take up arms against their fellow countrymen even though they did not initiate violence towards anyone- or to send their own kids to government indoctrination day-camps, that tyranny will never cease to exist.

          • None of this crap would be happening if it weren’t for the subservient, bootlicking Fudds out there who wave the flag, say the Pledge and believe that cops are “heroes” and “good guys” instead of reading the Bill of Rights and understanding the reasons why it was written (namely, the British abuse of power and declaration of martial law in Boston in 1774-75.)

            People who think that loyalty to the government is the highest form of patriotism are the root of the problem. Unfortunately, these people serve on juries… and frequently acquit abusive cops.

            Remember, James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, wrote that “government is a necessary evil.” Cops are armed government enforcers… necessary, but EVIL nonetheless.

            • Hi X,
              Neither cops nor the state are necessary. They we’re designed from the very beginning to be evil! The fondling fathers of this country’s government violated the law by illegally replacing the Articles of Confederation with the inferior CONstitution. They then violated the CONstitution and the Bill of Rights before the ink on them had time to dry. Statism is an unnecessary evil!

              • Hi again X, I should of added a recommendation that you search for a previous article here on this site entitled ‘Anarchy Works’. There were a lot of very good comments to Eric’s great article concerning having a voluntariest society. I don’t have the time to type out all of those points here tonight.

            • Hi X,

              Just as liberalism has evolved into a mutated form of socialism, conservatism has mutated into a form of fascism – its worshipful attitude toward anyone wearing a government costume being the obvious evidence of this sickness. A conservative was once someone suspicious of the government and wary of government power. Such a person was also suspicious of those who wielded government power, who enforced the decrees of the government.

              The good news is that there is a definite backlash developing against the socialism espoused by the Democrats, in part because that socialism is mixed with Diversity Mongering and radical feminism and the emoting freak show that feelings matter more than facts. Lots of people have had it with all that. It’s why Trump is jefe.

              But, the reaction tends toward “law and order” authoritarianism, which mixes corporatism with thinly veiled theocratic re-ordering of people’s lives. It’s exasperating to people who understand what freedom means – and esteem it. People who are only bothered by “diversity” when it’s forced down their throats, literally at gunpoint. People who do not “fag bash” but also don’t want to be forced to bake cakes for gays (and so on). People who believe people should be be held accountable when they cause harm, but otherwise have a right to be left alone – period.

      • Miranda warnings are only legally required when someone is placed under arrest.
        At the very beginning of any encounter with a cop, way before any arrest is pending, you should be issuing that warning to yourself.

  12. A fledgling dictatorship needs large swaths of the population to go along with everything. The law is the law.. and of course it is sacred and must not be violated – confess your crimes!

    Perhaps it is from living in the corruption capital of the world and watch daily as entire government bureaucracies and their leaders violate every law imaginable – you know the big ones regarding stealing and upholding the Constitution, then there are the lesser laws that they are immune from that peons will go to prison for – all the while they demand we kowtow to each of their new proclamations of law that we must abide by. Be it regarding drinking straws or bicycle lanes, we must obey – not they.

    The fledgling dictatorship is growing up very quickly.

  13. Not much of the enslavement will change unless government public schools are eliminated – meaning the tuition money must be controlled by parents, via writing a check, – not through socialist “property taxes”.

    • That’s how it really ought to be..but the parents just don’t value a well-educated kid as much as they do those tubby intellectually stunted tax-deductible kids

LEAVE A REPLY