• 14 5 67818
  • Page
  • Text Only
LOOPHOLE, you're welcome, and correct both in your borrowed analysis and opinion (in my opinion). So I guess I'll leave the good and indifferent citizens my own advice (I'll leave the bad citizens to their own):

At the risk of again being obvious, it's quite true that in a situation like OP's, you do not have to cooperate with police in any way - it is your right. It may serve to extend your detention somewhat, but you'll certainly deny the officer's any satisfaction in doing their job, if that is your objective. But that you have the right is not saying you must always assert it, and there are occasions when it can benefit you, the officers, and fellow citizens for you to do so. I submit OP's situation is just such a case. OP suffered some inconvenience, but no deprivation of his constitutional rights.

GREEN = Walgreen's was right

RED = Walgreen's was wrong

YELLOW = I just drank 4 glasses of iced tea!

sackland87 said:   Shall we vote?

GREEN = Cops were right

RED = Cops were wrong
sackland87 said:   GREEN = Walgreen's was right

RED = Walgreen's was wrong
There's a bigger issue at hand. There are so many asinine regulations regarding cash transactions that ordinary commerce is being stifled by the government. Most people are aware of the cash transaction reporting requirements when a deal involves over $10K. But money transfer services like Moneygram and Western Union have a $3,000 limit. Anything above that is considered suspicious.

It's a perfect formula for Big Brother to keep his watchful eye on everyone - inflation goes up while reporting thresholds go down - $3,000 is no longer a lot of money. Pretty soon it will be both Mike Bloomberg and the IRS wanting to know every time I buy a bottle of Sprite.

What the cops did here and what Walgreens did here are symptoms of a much bigger problem. It seems that OP is feeling flabbergasted that the Walgreens clerk called the cops the same way I was flabbergasted when several of my neighbors called the property management company when they didn't like the way I parked my car, although technically, it was parked legally. It's about a disbelief that anyone could be so bored and dissatisfied with their lives and simultaneously have enough free time to be such rabble rousers. Nobody likes a gossipy whore.

Op are you a racial minority ? What race was the Walgreens clerk?


I dont think the cops were "right"- but I do think after receiving a report of suspicious activity from Walgreens they've handled this properly . They were required to follow up, not simply ignore it. Better they follow up than just turn it over to IRS or homeland security . Trust me in that .

It seems they realized nothing was amiss and didnt treat you badly . They've realized you are simply a deal hunter /extreme couponer and that your activity , while highly suspicious and indicative of I'd theft /stolen credit card rings and money launderers, you aren't doing that

I agree with you that there is a bigger issue at hand. If you think you have any privacy anymore, you are wrong. If you buy too many gift cards, you're a money launderer. If you use too much electricity in your house, you have a weed farm in the basement. If you buy more than one box of Sudafed, you're a meth cook. You're always being watched and monitored.

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   Op are you a racial minority ? What race was the Walgreens clerk?




No. And I have no clue.

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   I dont think the cops were "right"- but I do think after receiving a report of suspicious activity from Walgreens they've handled this properly . They were required to follow up, not simply ignore it. Better they follow up than just turn it over to IRS or homeland security . Trust me in that .It's only a matter of time until they merge their databases and can easily and quickly cross-check all sorts of "suspicious" information. Government bloat, waste, and inefficiencies are the last line of defense against this, unfortunately. The main problem is that MOST PEOPLE WANT IT. That's really sad.

OP forgot to mention that he was dressed as a Taliban at the time of the Terry stop.

Crazytree said:   OP forgot to mention that he was dressed as a Taliban at the time of the Terry stop.

I knew I forgot something!

OIiverQuackenbush said:   I just drank 4 glasses of spiked iced tea, hopped in my car, and got stopped at a checkpoint!
fixed!

winter said:   
I think OP did the right thing in talking to the police rather than saying nothing and escalating the situation.



I can agree with almost everything winter said, but standing on your Fifth Amendment right is not escalation.
If the cop chooses to escalate against you because he doesn't like your rights, then he does need that summons to federal court CN47 was talking about.

In the situation at hand, we'll never know what would have happened if OP had gone silent or gone on the offensive.
OP cooperated and voluntarily waived his rights, cops were satisfied, now it's over.

If that had been me, I would have gone on the offensive.
Am I under arrest?
..If yes, do you mind articulating your probable cause?
..If no, am I being detained?
....If yes, what's your reasonable suspicion?
....If no, goodbye.

Let's assume the cop went with detained, for suspicion of purchasing a gift card:
I wasn't aware that there was a law against buying gift cards, please cite the statute.
There is no such statute? I thought so. Piss off, douche nozzle. (yes, I'd call him a douche to his face at this point, he's already admitted to detaining me without reasonable suspicion, so he's the criminal here and I hate badge toting criminals)

OP, I feel for you.

Your story reminds me of my run-in with FBI agent during the dollar coin days when Huntington bank security guy was grilling me about my coin churning activities (depositing coins at different branches of the same bank, etc) while an FBI agent was present there. Just like you, I was let go without any issues. I continued to churn, at Huntington, within the limits until the Mint changed its policy.

I think you handled the situation calmly with honesty while being questioned by the police. You are lucky that you can now move on with your normal "routine". Take it as a blessing...

However, I highly recommend not to make a complain with Walgreen corporate. The casher is just doing her job when they see something suspicious. Colleagues working in the same corporation also might talk about their "jobs" among themselves. Your stopping by multiple Walgreen stores multiple times probably was a subject of their tea-time/happy hour topics. I will not be surprised that you were "talked' about among some Walgreen employees.

Whether you felt your rights was violated or not, you came out as a whole. Just take a deep breath, and move on. Not many people are doing what you are doing, and what you are doing is not "norm" to many people, including the cashers.

To this date, I am using Huntington Bank for my HELOC (they have a great HELOC rate) and am working with them for my investment properties as they allow you to have loans up to 10 properties as long as other factors are acceptable. If I made a complain against the casher/security guy at the bank, today, I probably will be blacklisted by Huntington.

Just let it go. You never know if there will be other great deals from Walgreen that you can benefit. You want to be able to continue to take advantage of deals from time to time.

Hope this helps ease your feeling and concerns.

I share DTASFAB's disbelief when it comes to the property management company, but not with the Walgreen's clerk. There was real potential for loss to Walgreens, and potential for more serious crime in general involved. As for "pissing on the U.S. Constitution," I would suggest that in our constitutional system, the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says (whether we like it or not). When officers act within the limitations the Constitution provides (per the Sup. Ct.) -- quite clearly not unchecked -- then they are not "pissing" on the Constitution. Moreover, my reading of the OP did not disclose that he was accused of anything, he was reasonably detained, questioned, and released with no consequences. "Pissing" on the Constitution is ignoring it, perhaps precisely what DTASFAB would have us do when it comes to using police powers - just in the other direction. It still smells the same.

taxmantoo said:   winter said:   
I think OP did the right thing in talking to the police rather than saying nothing and escalating the situation.



I can agree with almost everything winter said, but standing on your Fifth Amendment right is not escalation.
If the cop chooses to escalate against you because he doesn't like your rights, then he does need that summons to federal court CN47 was talking about.

In the situation at hand, we'll never know what would have happened if OP had gone silent or gone on the offensive.
OP cooperated and voluntarily waived his rights, cops were satisfied, now it's over.

If that had been me, I would have gone on the offensive.
Am I under arrest?
..If yes, do you mind articulating your probable cause?
..If no, am I being detained?
....If yes, what's your reasonable suspicion?
....If no, goodbye.

Let's assume the cop went with detained, for suspicion of purchasing a gift card:
I wasn't aware that there was a law against buying gift cards, please cite the statute.
There is no such statute? I thought so. Piss off, douche nozzle. (yes, I'd call him a douche to his face at this point, he's already admitted to detaining me without reasonable suspicion, so he's the criminal here and I hate badge toting criminals)

Never will be the day you stand in court to defend the detention someone who stole your idemtity and used it for thousamds of dollars in purvhases.

Sorry but the transaction phase of card churmimg has all the hallmarks of fraud and plenty of suspicion to get police attention.

Which one were you referring to??? Is it TIMOTHY E. WIND?

Where are they now

No suggests that the s.ct. pisses on the constitution, but I did snap this picture of scalia's toilet paper when I was in his chamber's watercloset.

LOOPHOLE said:   FoxOne said:   LOOPHOLE said:   Glitch99 said:   LOOPHOLE said:   but when a corporate policy exists that prompts automatic calls to the police for buying a card, that's a problem
Now you are just making things up....


It has been stated or eluded to that this may have been a result of corporate policy. I did indicate that I was basing my statement on "the information at hand".


LOL. "stated or eluded[sic] to... may have been..." is a pretty big back pedal from "a corporate policy exists". Stop making things up; you don't win any arguments this way and even people in your own camp wince in pain.


Yes, my mind was distracted with thoughts of what might have happened had he eluded the police, LOL. There may or may not be a corporate policy, but in this thread it has been mentioned. I for one would like to know if in fact such a policy exists & presumably would many others.

If this was corporate policy, I'll (pretty safely) assume that FW would've already been flooded by identical threads long ago.....

I think im the only one who has even alluded to the possibility that corporate was involved - but store employees acting on the advice of their loss prevention department (which is what I suggested) is still a far cry from it being any sort of corporate policy.

LOL OliverQuackenbush - I'm guessing it's not a coincidence that you picked the justice with the poorest aim when it comes to the Constitution.

SUCKISSTAPLES said:   Op are you a racial minority ? What race was the Walgreens clerk?


I dont think the cops were "right"- but I do think after receiving a report of suspicious activity from Walgreens they've handled this properly . They were required to follow up, not simply ignore it. Better they follow up than just turn it over to IRS or homeland security . Trust me in that .

It seems they realized nothing was amiss and didnt treat you badly . They've realized you are simply a deal hunter /extreme couponer and that your activity , while highly suspicious and indicative of I'd theft /stolen credit card rings and money launderers, you aren't doing that


A couple of years back I went to an ATM to get $500 in cash for a specific purpose, I then proceeded in to the bank to change the $20 bills in to $100's for the sake of convenience. The teller asked me for my account info. to which I replied I just got the money from the ATM & I don't have an account here. She told me I would need to deposit the cash in to an account first, then she could give me the $100's, I showed her the atm receipt, she then asked me for ID, I declined, she then stated she couldn't give me any $100's because I could be a criminal, and made reference to Homeland Security, blah blah, $100 bills are "restricted", baffled she told me I could have requested a single $100 bill, but since I asked for five I couldn't have any. She pushed the pile of $20's back at me as if they were tainted & said she would call thee manager. Being in a hurry and rather annoyed, I told her don't bother and as I left in dismay she said she was going to file a report anyway. All this from some 20y.o. teller, and this my friends is the heart of the problem, clueless idiots.

I then decided to duplicate this scenario just out of curiosity over the course of several months and years and never had any similar experience. Had the clueless teller hit the silent alarm, it would have been a circus.

I'm curious as to why your buying that many giftcards in the first place. You can't use them to pay your cc bill and if you sell them on eBay they will sell for less than face value which you will lose more than the 6% that a cc offers with CashBack rewards. So how are you making money buying all those giftcards, not to mention selling them all in time to pay your cc bill without having to pay interest and late fees?

yobry1 said:   I'm curious as to why your buying that many giftcards in the first place. You can't use them to pay your cc bill and if you sell them on eBay they will sell for less than face value which you will lose more than the 6% that a cc offers with CashBack rewards. So how are you making money buying all those giftcards, not to mention selling them all in time to pay your cc bill without having to pay interest and late fees?

This has nothing to do with the conversation. But youre right. I buy thousands of dollars of GCs because I like losing money.

sackland87 said:   I agree with you that there is a bigger issue at hand. If you think you have any privacy anymore, you are wrong. If you buy too many gift cards, you're a money launderer. If you use too much electricity in your house, you have a weed farm in the basement. If you buy more than one box of Sudafed, you're a meth cook. You're always being watched and monitored.

IMO, you basically waived some of your rights when you agreed to obtain security clearance whether you believe/want or not.

sackland87 said:   

This has nothing to do with the conversation...
Really?!

DTASFAB said: Nobody likes a gossipy whore.
This not not exactly true... especially when the "gossipy whore" happens to take down someone powerful. She often gets a modelling contract with a major men's magazine and many cheers. It's the folks who might be associated with the gossipy whore's bed who will have the problem with her -- and that's hardly everybody.

yobry1 said:   I'm curious as to why your buying that many giftcards in the first place. You can't use them to pay your cc bill and if you sell them on eBay they will sell for less than face value which you will lose more than the 6% that a cc offers with CashBack rewards. So how are you making money buying all those giftcards, not to mention selling them all in time to pay your cc bill without having to pay interest and late fees?

Yeah....exactly....there are not the droids you're looking for...you can be on your way.

trekwars2000 said:   I only read the first page of this thread but wanted to say something tothe OP. Knowing lots of people with clearances much higher than the SECRET level - you have nothing to worry about losing your clearance. In the past foreclosures, short sales and other money "red flag" events were heavily weighed in re-investigations - not so much anymore. In addition, being pulled over and questioned is hardly a report-able offense.

What about the fact that he cracked after 2 min of questioning? Surely this should have some bearing on one's eligibility to hold a clearance.

Just kidding, OP.

OIiverQuackenbush said:   GREEN = Walgreen's was right

RED = Walgreen's was wrong

YELLOW = I just drank 4 glasses of iced tea!

Man, wish I could yellow this more than once.

Glitch99 said:   dbl118 said:   An interesting somewhat similar case
Characterizing that as being "somewhat similar" only helps perpetuate the problem. A patrol car stopping you in the middle of the day is a far cry from 7 unidentifiable guys jumping you in a dark parking lot. When privacy nuts lump it all together, they give the safety nuts no choice but to dig in to the opposite extreme. Yes, they're all nuts, because they're all hellbent on winning regardless of how ridiculous they end up looking in the process. If people would use a little reason and common sense, and drop the me-verses-the-world attitudes, 99% of everyone's concerns (on both sides) would disappear.


I actually thought it was a good example to explain what type of behavior might warrant considering a lawsuit. It helps to have some context about how ridiculous a lawsuit would be in this case when you put it up against a scenario where somebody actually has a legitimate gripe against law enforcement.

I suggest anyone playing the gift card game watch these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4zYizaMmDo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT3K-Qb1WVU

It's about 'attempted' civil right violations; and how to politely and legally tell authorities to go away.

DTASFAB said:   I find it sad whenever a thread like this starts on FW. It's always the same people taking the same positions, and nothing ever gets resolved. The people who love freedom will green this post, and the people who hate freedom will give me red. Those in the latter group clearly do not believe in Miranda rights or in the concept of being innocent until proven guilty in a [albeit, rigged and biased] court of law. I am discouraged when I think about the large number of Americans who fail to recognize that giving their fellow citizens the benefit of the doubt and resisting the urge to jump to conclusions represents the epitome of American idealism. The Bill of Rights was passed precisely to counteract the influence of people who don't believe in fairness and justice.

When I hear cable news anchors referring to "freedom fighters," I get confused about whether they're talking about people who are fighting for freedom or against it.

I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view. And life went on no matter who was wrong or right.


So somebody that thinks you are wrong and gives your post red hates freedom. Who's not giving their fellow citizens the benefit of the doubt now?

Taxmantoo said: If that had been me, I would have gone on the offensive.
Am I under arrest?
..If yes, do you mind articulating your probable cause?
..If no, am I being detained?
....If yes, what's your reasonable suspicion?
....If no, goodbye.

Let's assume the cop went with detained, for suspicion of purchasing a gift card:
I wasn't aware that there was a law against buying gift cards, please cite the statute.
There is no such statute? I thought so. Piss off, douche nozzle. (yes, I'd call him a douche to his face at this point, he's already admitted to detaining me without reasonable suspicion, so he's the criminal here and I hate badge toting criminals)


An officer is under no obligation to identify or explain the suspicions that give rise to the detention, much less cite you chapter, statute, and verse. Nonetheless, most will give some reason, or at least make it clear by the nature of their questioning. The much more likely response here would have been "you are being detained so that we may investigate possible fraud relating to a credit card purchase." There are many criminal statutes implicated by the reported conduct, and there is little question that the reasonable suspicion standard was met. Notably, even if the officer's stated suspicions were legally inadequate (i.e., your assumption), he would be on sound legal ground for the detention so long as facts were known that would cause a reasonable officer to suspect criminal activity. The standard is an objective, rather than subjective, one. In other words, he could be dead wrong in his own reasons for stopping you, but legally right in having done so.

Your uncivil response would hardly improve your situation, nor dissuade a badge-toting criminal for that matter. A polite explanation to the officer would serve you, the officer, and others similarly situated much better.

Taxmantoo said: If that had been me, I would have gone on the offensive.
Am I under arrest?
..If yes, do you mind articulating your probable cause?
..If no, am I being detained?
....If yes, what's your reasonable suspicion?
....If no, goodbye.

Let's assume the cop went with detained, for suspicion of purchasing a gift card:
I wasn't aware that there was a law against buying gift cards, please cite the statute.
There is no such statute? I thought so. Piss off, douche nozzle. (yes, I'd call him a douche to his face at this point, he's already admitted to detaining me without reasonable suspicion, so he's the criminal here and I hate badge toting criminals)


An officer is under no obligation to identify or explain the suspicions that give rise to the detention, much less cite you chapter, statute, and verse. Nonetheless, most will give some reason, or at least make it clear by the nature of their questioning. The much more likely response here would have been "you are being detained so that we may investigate possible fraud relating to a credit card purchase." There are many criminal statutes implicated by the reported conduct, and there is little question that the reasonable suspicion standard was met. Notably, even if the officer's stated suspicions were legally inadequate (i.e., your assumption), he would be on sound legal ground for the detention so long as facts were known that would cause a reasonable officer to suspect criminal activity. The standard is an objective, rather than subjective, one. In other words, he could be dead wrong in his own reasons for stopping you, but legally right in having done so.

Your uncivil response would hardly improve your situation, nor dissuade a badge-toting criminal for that matter. A polite explanation to the officer would serve you, the officer, and others similarly situated much better.

I am puzzled by the action of Walgreens. They took your Citi credit card in payment for the PayPal card yet they called the police. IF they were so concerned with fraud why did they let you use a credit card for payment in the first place instead of cash? Doesn't all the liability for fraud fall on Citi? So why should Walgreen's care? Since you are getting TYP points from Citi I am assuming you are using a MasterCard. You are not even required to provide proof of ID if you have a signed credit card. Per MasterCard:

Q: A merchant required me to provide identification to use my MasterCard card

A: A merchant must not refuse to complete a transaction solely because a cardholder refuses to provide additional identification information. However, there are certain situations where a merchant may require some personal information, such as a shipping address for online purchases. Additionally, if your MasterCard card is unsigned, a merchant should request personal identification to confirm your identify and ask the cardholder to sign the card before completing the transaction.

If you believe that a merchant has violated the above standard or their actions requesting identification are questionable, you may report it by clicking the following URL and completing a brief online form


http://www.mastercard.us/support/problems-using-mastercard.html

I used to get POd when a clerk required ID but now just shrug it off as not worth my time to tell them it is not required under MasterCard merchant rules.

This whole scenario seems to point to an overzealous clerk/manager.

trekwars2000 said:   I only read the first page of this thread but wanted to say something to the OP. Knowing lots of people with clearances much higher than the SECRET level - you have nothing to worry about losing your clearance. In the past foreclosures, short sales and other money "red flag" events were heavily weighed in re-investigations - not so much anymore. In addition, being pulled over and questioned is hardly a report-able offense.

Yes and no...I remember when I was much younger having to abruptly transfer my car from my fathers name into my own. The reason: my unpaid parking tickets, mentioned in a security review. Thankfully, given a heads-up, we were able to remedy the situation without my wayward young self causing my family to be plunged into joblessness and poverty, but I've still never forgotten that phone call...boy, was he pissed!

You're right though, the odds of a simple traffic stop popping up are basically zero, even if the officer filled out a standard Field Interrogation Card. The Secret Service nonsense might concern me if I were the OP, merely because thats a whole 'nother level of database and one that is (just by it's nature) bound to be more widespread in terms of sharing.

In just curious how the cop pulled the OP over so fast. Wasn't it matter of minutes?

Did the officer come in to review the security tapes or did the cashier write down his license plate?

stevick said:   As for "pissing on the U.S. Constitution," I would suggest that in our constitutional system, the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says (whether we like it or not). When officers act within the limitations the Constitution provides (per the Sup. Ct.) -- quite clearly not unchecked -- then they are not "pissing" on the Constitution. Moreover, my reading of the OP did not disclose that he was accused of anything, he was reasonably detained, questioned, and released with no consequences. "Pissing" on the Constitution is ignoring it, perhaps precisely what DTASFAB would have us do when it comes to using police powers - just in the other direction. It still smells the same.Libertarianism bordering on a favoritism for lawlessness that mirrors what the world looked like when men lived in caves 10,000 years ago is hardly pissing on a document that, when originally written, had the primary purpose of protecting individual freedom, not enabling authoritarian government power. A private citizen being in favor of small/no government is a far cry from a government official intentionally ignoring and violating clauses of a constitution he swore to enforce and protect.

As an American citizen, I'm entitled to disagree with supreme court rulings, and I'm also entitled to disagree with the entire process of judicial review. The latter still isn't written anywhere in the constitution and wasn't established until 1803, via case precedent. Just because the supreme court says something is constitutional doesn't make it so. The cases of Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v Board of Ed are obvious examples of this. The court has overstepped its bounds many times in ruling certain laws constitutional when they clearly should not be. Often, this is done due to political and/or financial pressure. That the justices are appointed and not elected, and serve for life, is not sufficient insulation from political influence.

It's not about whether you or I like or agree with their rulings. It's about whether their rulings are consistent with, or in many cases, inconsistent with, the written constitution of the United States. In other words, the standard is an objective, rather than subjective, one.

If anything, the fact that the supreme court doesn't face any repercussions from making bad rulings is more reason to doubt the legitimacy of those rulings. The Constitution says what the Constitution says, NOT what nine lawyers who wear black robes and serve for life say it says.

camiolo said:   I suggest anyone playing the gift card game watch these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4zYizaMmDo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT3K-Qb1WVU

It's about 'attempted' civil right violations; and how to politely and legally tell authorities to go away.
After watching the second video, it's clear to me who the real terrorists are, and who the average American citizen really should be afraid of. The issue raised in the video about a "dog hit" constituting probable cause for a vehicular search is a perfect one that demonstrates how the supreme court rulings often don't have anything to do with the constitution. A dog, whose life has already been determined by society to have an intrinsic value of zero, could have a physical health ailment such as an irregular heartbeat that causes the dog's handler to misinterpret a specific behavior as a "hit" for detecting drugs. Only a supreme court justice who is not interested in freedom, liberty, and fairness could possibly rule that the writers of the U.S. Constitution intended for such a low threshold of evidence to constitute probable cause for a warrantless search of private property.

As for unchecked authority, here we have a perfect example. Those kids in the second video had no drugs in the car. They effectively pissed off the border patrol agents, who are going to have way more credibility within the legal system than private citizens accused as defendants in a criminal case. How easy would it have been for any of those agents to plant some drugs in the vehicle? There's no practical and effective way to prevent that. Those kids were relying on the integrity and professionalism of people they had just pissed off. The system is broken, and there's no way to fix it.

stevick said:   
An officer is under no obligation to identify or explain the suspicions that give rise to the detention, much less cite you chapter, statute, and verse. Nonetheless, most will give some reason, or at least make it clear by the nature of their questioning. The much more likely response here would have been "you are being detained so that we may investigate possible fraud relating to a credit card purchase." There are many criminal statutes implicated by the reported conduct, and there is little question that the reasonable suspicion standard was met. Notably, even if the officer's stated suspicions were legally inadequate (i.e., your assumption), he would be on sound legal ground for the detention so long as facts were known that would cause a reasonable officer to suspect criminal activity. The standard is an objective, rather than subjective, one. In other words, he could be dead wrong in his own reasons for stopping you, but legally right in having done so.

Your uncivil response would hardly improve your situation, nor dissuade a badge-toting criminal for that matter. A polite explanation to the officer would serve you, the officer, and others similarly situated much better.


And I am under no obligation to obey orders which exceed his authority.
If he says I'm under arrest, then I'm under arrest, and he better not claim otherwise next month when I sue him for false arrest.
If he says I'm not under arrest, then I'll exercise my right to ignore him and go peaceably about my business, unless he articulates a sound reason why I should hang around.

Once I have ascertained that I am dealing with a person who has no business cashing a check from my tax dollars, my uncivil response to him is not intended to improve my relationship with him, it's intended to make his continuing career on the public payroll as unpleasant for him as I can manage.

So why were you buying all the GCs?

dbl118 said:   DTASFAB said:   I find it sad whenever a thread like this starts on FW. It's always the same people taking the same positions, and nothing ever gets resolved. The people who love freedom will green this post, and the people who hate freedom will give me red. Those in the latter group clearly do not believe in Miranda rights or in the concept of being innocent until proven guilty in a [albeit, rigged and biased] court of law. I am discouraged when I think about the large number of Americans who fail to recognize that giving their fellow citizens the benefit of the doubt and resisting the urge to jump to conclusions represents the epitome of American idealism. The Bill of Rights was passed precisely to counteract the influence of people who don't believe in fairness and justice.

When I hear cable news anchors referring to "freedom fighters," I get confused about whether they're talking about people who are fighting for freedom or against it.

I once believed in causes too, I had my pointless point of view. And life went on no matter who was wrong or right.


So somebody that thinks you are wrong and gives your post red hates freedom. Who's not giving their fellow citizens the benefit of the doubt now?

What did I write in that particular post that you think I'm wrong about? If you believe in freedom, if you believe in proper Miranda warnings, if you believe in the criminally accused being innocent until proven guilty in practical as well as theoretical terms, what did I write that you might disagree with? Specifically, what part of that post might deserve red from someone who genuinely believes in all those things? If it's the part that you bolded, that's something I think is self-evident. Reverse the question a bit. How would it be possible to not give a criminally accused defendant the benefit of the doubt, prior to conviction, if you truly believe in the idea of innocence until proven guilty? You don't think that's the epitome of American idealism? Whatever. That's a tangential distraction and a minor point at most.

The point I tried to make to you is that a detention may be a lawful action, whether or not it's reasons are articulated to you or meet with your own understanding of the law. In effecting the detention, the officer can give lawful commands that you are obliged to obey, failing which you are subject to arrest for interfering with the officer's performance of his duty. Furthermore, the officer is authorized to use the reasonable force necessary to give effect to his authority (i.e., to stop you from leaving). You have every right not to speak, but no right to disobey the lawful command - and you do so at your own peril. I can assure you that in the scenario you describe, the officer can make your own circumstances much more unpleasant - and within the law - than you can his by your incivility.



Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2014