Posted on 10/20/2002 7:48:19 AM PDT by SamAdams76
Why are his hands behind his back and his wrists together? Could it be they are using plastic strap cuffs? Hmmmm?
When police officers pull you over and request to search your vehicle giving the probable cause of the past witnesses description of a white van leaving the scene and the recent shooting that just happened in _____. You, as the driver, at this point have been told that they ARE going to search your vehicle And you have been notified of the probable cause as to why.
You step out of the vechile, and here's where the problem lies, the officer has a need to ensure his safety and in EVERY other place in the USA I know of this is accomplished by the officer doing a "perry search" or a pat down of your exterior of clothing. This is done to ensure you are not armed with knife or gun. That SHOULD be enough, anything else is pushing the limit of not just civil rights but SAFETY. Training a weapon on someone even if it is not your intent to fire is ASKING for an accident to happen. this tactic has been proved LEATHEL in an incident where an officer's gun "misfired" and killed unarmed and cooperative 11 year old boy face down standing over him with his shotgun pointed at the boys back.
If the guns cannot be displayed, I guess the picture got tampered with. LOL
I have looked at the pictures and see no guns, not that I can see through the lady cop, but it is an assumption that she has a gun, not proven just because she is in the position that an officer takes behind the door and will (IMO) have a gun drawn in this position.
Spunkets, without you imagination getting untethered, where are the guns?
I bet Steven Speilberg was involved, then... ;0)
I keep using the word because your arguments, and others, are completely based on your feelings and your feelings seem to be more important to you than the rule of law. If you don't want to be called on it then start using logic instead. As to your questions all three answers are no.
So you still wouldn't be upset under martial law? Interesting. But not surprising.
No I didn't. I question whether there was a legitimate reason. I don't assume things. That can only be done on the basis of emotion. I try to analyze things.
Nice talking to you. I have to go to bed.
So you are determined to see handcuffs of some sort. Tell ya what download the picture and enlarge his wrist area if you can see any evidence of any type of handcuff then I will retract my statement. That position is used all the time to avoid ease of movement and does not always involve cuffs. I assumed that same position in my wild and reckless early days.
Very evasive reply to my point. There is no reasonable basis to believe any lawmaker is in danger given the facts to date other than 1. the killings are near D.C. and 2. lawmakers are in D.C.. That's thin. Got more? Explain it.
We?! You can give up whatever rights you so choose, but forcing me to give up any of my rights is an initiation of force. You can do the paranoid thing. I'm sticking to principle.
Honestly, we don't know if that statement is true or not either.
Sheesh.
You know, it's been kind of fun talking with you - but I'm getting the idea, after being called "emotional" four times, that you really aren't interested in my legitimate, factual points at all. You concede I'm correct that none of those things is illegal, and you turn around and admonish me for not looking at the rule of law or being logical.
You're not even making sense now. Good night.
Then by all means if you are stopped in a roadblock just wave your rights around and I am sure you will be given a police escort out of the area along with an abject apology for your inconvenience. Better yet quote Ayn Rand to the cops they really like that stuff.
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.