Posted on 06/17/2009 8:15:34 AM PDT by thewarden
Hear video from Tom Gresham’s Gun Talk radio show of a conversation between a Shreveport man and Shreveport Mayor Cedric Glover. Robert Baillio was stopped by a police officer who, without a warrant or without probable cause, took a gun from his truck. When Mr. Baillio called Mayor Glover for an explanation, he was told, more than once that ‘when you are stopped by a police officer, your rights are suspended’. The Mayor owes an explanation for his remarks. Listen to the broadcast and to Mr. Baillio’s conversation with the Mayor here: 090614guntalkA.mp3 The mayor's comments start at 12:30 into the audio.
(Excerpt) Read more at mybossier.blogspot.com ...
This would better read:
Shreveport Mayor Encourages Police Slayings.
The reason I sat this is because if your rights are suspended when the police stop you there are several immediate consequences:
1 - You do not have the right to trial; you are guilty by virtue of being stopped by the police.
2 - You do not have the right to personal property; the police may steal any property you have.
3 - You do not have the right to life; the police may simply murder you.
4 - You do not have the right to defend yourself from bodily harm or attempt to save your own life; any such attempts are ‘resisting arrest’.
This mayor is an idiot who has no understanding whatsoever of Justice or the American legal-system... the sad thing is though, that this may actually become the new American legal-system. There’s change for you.
You should read my WHOLE post..............before going off half cocked.
I know my rights
It took listening to the whole conversation to realize that the Mayor’s statement is being taken out of context. He is not saying that all rights are suspended when you are pulled over by a LEO, but he doesnt get around to clarifying what he means until well into part 2 of the YouTube video and only then in a patronizing manner telling the caller that he assumed that the caller had the ‘common sense’ to understand what he meant. The Mayor is obviously not the brightest bulb in the box. Besides being consumed with his own sense of superiority he repeats his points over and over as if expounding on them somehow made them relevant.
Sounds like any cop, prosecutor, or politician to me.
It is no coincidence that the largest pawn shop in my city is next door to the only store in town that sells Police and Sheriff's uniforms.
Uh, last I remember, the Boy Scouts don’t discriminate by race.
Excuse me Mr. Mayor but when you are stopped by a police officer, an officer of the state, i.e. government, by the way, that is when your rights matter most. I believe Miranda settled that decades ago.
the Mayor needs deporting...right back in time to the Soviet Union..where rights existed only up until needed!!!
The mayor is partially correct, but used a very poor choice of words.
When a policeman stops you, and even in some circumstances when you approach a policeman, you are not arrested, but you are detained. In such a situation, there are lots of directions to go, but the situation could be described as being called “talk-question-order”.
“Talking” with a policeman is an informal conversation of uncontroversial subjects. However, if information of evidence or crime is provided, this changes in character entirely. This becomes obvious with police who do not “talk”, such as the German police. They do not have conversations with citizens, they only order or direct. A very different set of rules.
“Question” with a policeman is also ambivalent. That is, some questions must be answered, others do not. This is pre-arrest, so Miranda warnings are haphazard. However, for a citizen, this is a very dangerous place to be. The standard used to be, if asked a menacing question, to in turn ask the officer if you were being detained. If they replied “no”, then you were free to go. However, it is countered by the officer saying, “It depends what your answers are.”
Thus, the current defense to “question” is to state that, “Please direct all *statements* and questions to my attorney.”
“Order” is a situation where you must explicitly obey the orders and instructions of an officer. Most of the time it is pre-arrest, but if you do not perform exactly as ordered, you may be arrested for resisting arrest. A good example is when a person is told to put their hands on the hood of their car. The officer, standing behind them, asks them a question. The person tries to turn around to face the officer and answer the question, and in doing so, removes one of their hands from the car. Instantly, they are resisting arrest.
Perhaps the best way to respond to this is the military habit of repeating back commands before executing them, and stating intent before acting.
“Put your hands on your car trunk.”
“I am putting my hands on my car trunk.”
“Come over here.”
“I am removing my hands from my car trunk so I can come over there.”
Remember, if there are two police officers at the scene, you must obey them both, and point out conflicting orders instead of choosing which one to execute.
Can just anybody view the YouTube video, or is that url confidential?
Rights have nothing to do with who is the center of the universe. When you are in contact with the police, THEY
are the center of the universe, and don’t doubt that for a second.
The best thing I’ve learned from this story: Always lock your doors when you exit your vehicle to talk to a LEO. If they want to do an illegal search and seizure, they’ll have to ask for the keys.
How disappointing that such a complicated set of protocols is needed to safely interact with the police these days.
I have heard on Shreveport TV stations on several occasions that Cedric may have a place in the Obama administration.
Anyone can, just go to You Tube and type “Shreveport Mayor” in the search box.
It’s part of the cumulative overload of government. One of the unexpected faults of the US constitution is that it should have included an equally methodical and continual reduction in government as well.
Something of the order of a perpetual ‘sunset’ law that applies to all government regulation, judicial precedent, and government employees.
Properly, there was something along those lines when senators were appointed by the States. The Amendment for them to be popularly elected severely diminished a regular check the States had on federal power. The States, as such, no longer have a voice in Washington.
Perhaps a solution might be in creating a ‘State referendum’, where State legislatures could vote to further limit federal power, imposing limits on spending and the size of the federal government without having to change the constitution. Again, not to create, but solely to reduce.
So at that point whether its fact or fiction he enforced it......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.