Shame on you pierce county sheriff!

[mjbskwim]

sssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

 

[CounterOfBeans]

6) keep your answers short:

"yessa massa"

"nosa massa"

"thankya massa"

7) dont look them in the eye... That is a sign of aggression.

8) if they tell you your name is toby, your name is toby.


Bubblegum that
If that's what police protection means to you, then keep it...




They may have violated his rights, but they did it with a wink and a smile, and that makes them professionals in your book.

Simply pathetic

ditto indeed!!!!

 

[CounterOfBeans]

RCW 9.73.030
Intercepting, recording, or divulging private communication — Consent required — Exceptions.

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any:

(b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.

(3) Where consent by all parties is needed pursuant to this chapter, consent shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted: PROVIDED, That if the conversation is to be recorded that said announcement shall also be recorded.


Read and learn yourself.

You say "read and learn for yourself" as if RCW 9.73.030 somehow conveys that citizens are subject to its restrictions. If you are reading the language and taking "individual" to mean a citizen, then you might want to take a look at the Washington Constitution's single-subject requirement at Article 2, Section 19:

"SECTION 19 BILL TO CONTAIN ONE SUBJECT. No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title."


Since the subject of "Intercepting, recording, or divulging private communication — Consent required..." clearly is germane specifically to legal fiction entities and their agents or representatives, whether corporate or governmental, it is clear the State Constitution precludes one from arguing that 9.73.030 was designed to restrict anyone in a legal class other than corporate and governmental entities and agents. Citizens are not of the same legal class as corporate and governmental entities and agents, and therefore are not available to be logrolled into the subject class of this statute. See STATE v. LANPHAR, No. 30518-6-II.,-- December 14, 2004

Lanphar first contends that the 2001 amendment unconstitutionally violates the Washington Constitution, article II, section 19.   Under that constitutional provision, "[n]o bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title."   He argues that the new statutory language expanded beyond the bill's restrictive title relating to "escaping from custody," rendering the provision unconstitutional and void.   Appellant's Br. at 7. Therefore, he asserts, the elements of the pre-July 1, 2001 bail jumping crime apply to his case and because the State did not prove that he " knowingly" failed to appear, his conviction must be reversed and dismissed.1
 We presume the constitutionality of statutes.  State v. Simmons, 117 Wash.App. 682, 688, 73 P.3d 380 (2003), aff'd, 152 Wash.2d 450, 98 P.3d 789 (2004) (citing State v. Blank, 131 Wash.2d 230, 235, 930 P.2d 1213 (1997)).   Lanphar bears the heavy burden of proving the statute unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.  Simmons, 117 Wash.App. at 688, 73 P.3d 380 (citing Blank, 131 Wash.2d at 235, 930 P.2d 1213).
 Lanphar takes issue with the title, suggesting that it only comprises escape from a "custody."   In our review under the article 2, section 19 analysis, we construe the title with reference to the language used in it.   State v. Thomas, 103 Wash.App. 800, 807, 14 P.3d 854 (2000), review denied, 143 Wash.2d 1022, 29 P.3d 719 (2001).   In doing so, we examine the body of the act in determining whether the title reflects the act's subject matter.   Thomas, 103 Wash.App. at 807, 14 P.3d 854.
 Titles may be general or restrictive.  Thomas, 103 Wash.App. at 807, 14 P.3d 854.   A general title is one which is broad rather than narrow.  Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Mgmt. v. State, 149 Wash.2d 622, 632-33, 71 P.3d 644 (2003) (citing Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State, 142 Wash.2d 183, 207, 11 P.3d 762 (2000)).   In assessing whether a title is general, it is not necessary that the title contain a general statement of the subject of an act;  a few well-chosen words, suggestive of the general subject stated, is all that is necessary.  Responsible Wildlife, 149 Wash.2d at 632-33, 71 P.3d 644 (citing Amalgamated, 142 Wash.2d at 209, 11 P.3d 762).
 A general title broadly allows subjects that are "reasonably germane" to its title to be contained in the bill's body and even "incidental subjects or subdivisions" may be allowed.  Responsible Wildlife, 149 Wash.2d at 632-33, 71 P.3d 644.  "[A] title complies with the constitution if it gives notice that would lead to an inquiry into the body of the act, or indicate to an inquiring mind the scope and purpose of the law."  Wash. Fed'n, 127 Wash.2d at 555, 901 P.2d 1028.
 We give general titles liberal construction.  Responsible Wildlife, 149 Wash.2d at 633, 71 P.3d 644.   The title need not be an index to the bill's contents or detail the bill's provisions.  Retired Pub. Employees, 148 Wash.2d at 628, 62 P.3d 470;  Wash. Fed'n, 127 Wash.2d at 556, 901 P.2d 1028.  " ‘All that is required is that there be some "rational unity" between the general subject and the incidental subdivisions.' "   Wash. Fed'n, 127 Wash.2d at 556, 901 P.2d 1028 (quoting State v. Grisby, 97 Wash.2d 493, 498, 647 P.2d 6 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1211, 103 S.Ct. 1205, 75 L.Ed.2d 446 (1983)).


There is no "rational unity" between citizens and corporate or governmental entities or agents for purposes of restricting some act. To propose there is, is to suggest that citizens are cut from the same legal identity cloth as those entities and agents that citizens hire to perform services on their behalf.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

+1

+2

 

[CounterOfBeans]

Boy, I am absolutely astonished at some of the posts here. Perhaps I'm naive, or I have too high an expectation of the - how shall I say it - rights consciousness of the firearms owning community. I'll pick out one post for a few observations.



<<I'm with the cops on this one. They have every right to make sure the public is safe.>>

No, they do not have the right to keep the public safe, they have the job of keeping the public safe, and the obligation by law to do so without violating the rights of the citizens that comprise the public.

<<If they see a guy with a gun, they should ask for your ID and CHL,>>

No problem, they can ask for your ID, but they cannot demand
it absent a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime is about to be or is being committed. (Note: In WA, by statute they can require a citizen to show their concealed license if that person is concealing a pistol)

<<If he tries to give you a hard time then he's in the wrong, but if your giving the LEO a hard time for checking your ID and making sure you have a CHL then your just a fool.>>

That's simply an opinion. My opinion regarding the incident in question (after listening to the recording) is that the OC'er did not give the LEO's a hard time, he respectfully tried to exercise is right under the law to not produce ID.

<<Your the reason people want to take our rights away.>>

A person standing up for his rights is the reason people want to take our rights away? Seriously?

<<We have the right, but we shouldn't give a system that wants us under rule any more reasons to take away our rights.>>

So......in order to keep the 'system' from taking away our rights, we should surrender them in the first place by not standing up for them?

Do folks not see that if we're not willing to stand up for our rights for fear of losing them, they've already been lost?

WRT a couple other posts: Yes, this entire issue concerns the 4th amendment and not the 2nd. Replay the entire incident, but substitute open carrying a chainsaw into the Starbucks instead of a handgun. The LEO's can still ask but not require identification to be produced, the citizen can still decline to produce ID when asked. If the cops insist and the citizen is forced to produce it, the 4th has been violated, it has nothing to do with any other amendment.

AGREED. It is simply astounding how disconnected many people are concerning their relationship as citizens to their public servants and how their rights interface with that relationship.

 

[CounterOfBeans]

Boy, there sure are a lot of lawyers on this forum!

Most of them have no actual statutory, constitutional or case law evidence to back up what they say though. Most of the case law I have seen cited gets pushed aside in favor of merely regurgitating more convenient enforcement policy platitudes that enjoy the acquiescent compliance of those who have given up on the Constitutional principles that underly July 4th fireworks celebrations.

 

[Father of four]

Interesting video.

Preacher Refuses Cops Demands On Constitutional Grounds

LiveLeak.com - Preacher Refuses Cops Demands On Constitutional Grounds

 

[Father of four]

Same guy? looking for trouble? Standing by his rights?

YouTube - Baptist pastor beaten + tazed by Border patrol - 11 stitches

 

[Father of four]

Legal Update on Pastor Beaten & Tased by Border Patrol - 11 stitches

YouTube - Legal Update on Pastor Beaten & Tased by Border Patrol - 11 stitches

 

[Father of four]

Dave Hodges -- Border Enforcement: Another Trojan Horse

On August 13, 2010, Pastor Steven Anderson's trial came to a speedy conclusion in Arizona Superior Court in Yuma, Arizona. The six person jury deliberated a mere 90 minutes before rendering a not guilty verdict on both counts. Despite Anderson's not guilty verdict, the Federal government has not yet returned his private property seized in the arrest.


Hmmm...Very interesting.


Below is what Dave Hodges said happened to him at the same checkpoint.

In less than 30 seconds, the search was over and I was told that my companion and I were free to go. Again, I demanded to know what probable cause provoked my detention and the unwarranted and illegal search of my vehicle to which a Border patrol officer replied "I needed to get my companion and I back into my car and be on our way "before we were treated to an interesting night." It was at that moment that I realized I had just been physically threatened by a Federal official for merely asserting my constitutional rights.


http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Arti...ot-guilty-verdict-on-all-counts-in-pastor.htm

Jury returns NOT GUILTY verdict on ALL counts in Pastor Anderson trial on 8/13/10

 

[revjen45]

The Sicherheitspolizei have carte blanche to teach the peons (formerly free Americans) a lesson whenever they think they are getting uppity. They don't need de jure authority when they have such de facto. Basically a badge is licence to do whatever they want, kinda like Blackwater mercenaries in some 3rd world cesspool. Failure to grovel is a serious charge, punishable by death on the spot - furtive/aggressive move, mean expression, any manifestation of an attitude of anything other than abject submission.

 

[riverrat373]

Same guy? looking for trouble? Standing by his rights?

YouTube - Baptist pastor beaten + tazed by Border patrol - 11 stitches

1:The border patrol may have been looking for illegal aliens or drug smugglers.
2:The man refuses to answer any questions.
3.The man refuses to let them search the car. (OK, I can buy that. They need probable cause.)
4:The border patrol says that their search dog sniffed either drugs or "people".
5:The man still refuses to let them search his car because he says he "did not hear the dog bark:.
6:Man refuses to get out of car.
7olice break car window and tase him.

1:Conservatives and Republicans are screaming bloody murder at the Obama administration to curtail illegal immigrants from entering the country.
2:Border patrol is doing a checkpoint search of cars for drugs and illegal immigrants.
3:Man refuses to answer any questions.
4:Man refuses to let them search the car.
5:Man is told that their search dog sniffed either drugs or persons.
6:Man refuses to get out of car.
7olice break car window and tase him.

Right now,border patrol agents probably have the most dangerous job of all law enforcement officers in the US. He should have gotten out of the car. If he did, this would have been a non-issue and he could have taken his case to court if he felt they were violating his Constitutional rights. :huh:

 

[svxr8dr]

1:The border patrol was looking for illegal aliens.
2:The man refuses to answer any questions.
3.The man refuses to let them search the car. (OK, I can buy that. They need probable cause.)
4:The border patrol says that their search dog sniffed either drugs or "people".
5:The man still refuses to let them search his car because he says he "did not hear the dog bark:.
6:Man refuses to get out of car.
7olice break car window and tase him.

1:Conservatives and Republicans are screaming bloody murder at the Obama administration to curtail illegal immigrants from entering the country.
2:Border patrol is doing a checkpoint search of cars for drugs and illegal immigrants.
3:Man refuses to answer any questions.
4:Man refuses to let them search the car.
5:Man is told that their search dog sniffed either drugs or persons.
6:Man refuses to get out of car.
7olice break car window and tase him.

Right now,border patrol agents probably have the most dangerous job of all law enforcement officers in the US. He should have gotten out of the car. If he did, this would have been a non-issue and he could have taken his case to court if he felt they were violating his Constitutional rights. :huh:

What was the initial stop for again?

 

[riverrat373]

They had set up a check point that from the video looks to be some kind of permanent one like you see when you hit the California border. I understand all about our rights under the 4th Amendment, but you cannot win in a situation like that. I think it's best to cooperate and file a suit later. This guy may have beat the charges, but he got 11 stitches, tasered and probably spent the night in jail. Many conservatives and Republicans have been critical of the Obama administration for not stopping drugs and illegals from crossing the border, but how else can the border patrol attain that goal without stopping people?

 

[Father of four]

I posted those videos and information for us to learn. It wasn't about Border Patrol or Location.

This thread is more likely to be about being bothered when you have done nothing wrong in the USA.

I am looking for answers to questions like...

Does the authority have the right to bother us whenever they choose?
Do we have to show our ID even if we do not want to?
Do we have to obey an order from someone with authority even if we believe we do not have to?
What does the 4th Amendment say about your rights?
If laws that are passed seem to contradict your Constitutional Rights what do you do about them?
How does a logical, responsible, Constitution believing citizen act in this type of situation?

 

[riverrat373]

I posted those videos and information for us to learn. It wasn't about Border Patrol or Location.

This thread is more likely to be about being bothered when you have done nothing wrong in the USA.

I am looking for answers to questions like...

Does the authority have the right to bother us whenever they choose?
Do we have to show our ID even if we do not want to?
Do we have to obey an order from someone with authority even if we believe we do not have to?
What does the 4th Amendment say about your rights?
If laws that are passed seem to contradict your Constitutional Rights what do you do about them?
How does a logical, responsible, Constitution believing citizen act in this type of situation?

1:No
2:No
3:No
4:Have you read it? I have.
5:Contact your elected representative.
6:Show their ID.

As I said in my last post, you cannot win in a confrontation with the law. The least that is probably going to happen to is you will spend a night in jail. I would not like being stopped for no good reason, but I would still cooperate and file my grievances afterward.
And, how do the police or border patrol know whether you have done anything wrong? In the case of the video the border patrol told him why they were stopping him. How many drug smugglers would get away if they said to the cops"I haven't done anything wrong so you can't stop me!"? Should they take their word for it? Law enforcement officers are not working against us, they are working to keep us safer.

 

[Father of four]

I agree it is much easier to show them the ID. Heck I would.

What does the 4th Amendment mean then?

Oxymoron?

 

[Father of four]

And the jury found that pastor not guility. That to me means the LEO's were in the wrong. Will they continue to treat people that way? If we dont know our rights will they tell us?

 

[riverrat373]

And the jury found that pastor not guility. That to me means the LEO's were in the wrong. Will they continue to treat people that way? If we dont know our rights will they tell us?

I don't think there is any clear cut answer to this dilemma!

 

[Father of four]

I agree. But this is important. Or We the People can just sweep it under the rug and ignore it. Who needs rights anyways. Let the authority pass laws and tell us what our rights are. That is the easiest.