Replies

What is scary about that? That is what 'having your day in court' is all about. My point is that if you are looking to be offended, or harassed or disrespected you will probably find it very easily. This probably would not have happened if the kid had answered the question "Where you headed tonight?" Is it too much to ask that someone answer that???? Conversation is a tool that officers use to identify people driving under the influence at legal DWI checkpoints (which I do think are a violation of Amendment IV). By not speaking with the officer, young Brett was baiting the officer and inviting this to happen.

Consider this scenario:
After refusing to answer the question "Where you headed tonight?", Brett drives to his ex girlfriends' house and hacks her, her parents and 7 year old twin brother and sister to death with a machete. What would the people here piling on the police officers have to say? I doubt it would be 'At least they didn't violate any of his constitutional rights'

Conversation is a tool that officers use to identify people driving under the influence at legal DWI checkpoints (which I do think are a violation of Amendment IV). By not speaking with the officer, young Brett was baiting the officer and inviting this to happen.

Consider this scenario:
After refusing to answer the question "Where you headed tonight?", Brett drives to his ex girlfriends' house and hacks her, her parents and 7 year old twin brother and sister to death with a machete. What would the people here piling on the police officers have to say? I doubt it would be 'At least they didn't violate any of his constitutional rights'

One, it seems, from the transcripts, that young Brett was speaking quite freely with the officers. He just didn't feel compelled to answer a personal question that is really none of the officers business.

And two, regarding your scenario, do you think, even if he felt compelled to answer; would have said he was going to his ex girlfriends house to hack her and her family to pieces with a machete?

You seem to have an optimistic assessment of the honesty of an evil doer out to do people harm; to spill his guts at a traffic stop.

Conversely, you seem to have an overly optimistic view of the intentions of the LEO's, or government agents.

And America was NOT founded by people whom had such optimistic views of government.

So your argument is that because SOMEBODY might SOMEDAY at SOMEWHERE chop another person up, we are all obligated to do whatever any petty-azz dictator wants us to do at any time?

We need to grow up and admit we are all guilty until proven innocent?

Those silly founders...

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of power .... It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions"
Daniel Webster

What are you talking about. Your comment is,,,,,,,,stupid!