[Lucky]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8520847761350501823&q=avoid+police

That's it, no value judgement.

[VARifleman]

I've watched that before, it's a good video, I'm sure most of the posters here are aware of the constitutional protections discussed in it, but it's still a good video to watch.

[El Tejon]

Very helpful. Tracks the guidelines I give to my guys in police encounters. Maybe I should link that video to my website:D ?

[Dr. Dickie]

It was good, but the Chris Rock video (just under it) was better:neener:

[chris in va]

A red flag went up when I saw it was by the former head of the ACLU, but still informative.

[Derby FALs]

http://www.flexyourrights.org

[Outlaws]

Excellent video.

[DontBurnMyFlag]

Ive seen that video before. Some of it is just a borderline handbook on how to get away with crimes.

I understand where they and many posters above me are coming from.

But you wanna not get arrested...dont do anything wrong.

[Smellvin]

That definitely has some good information applicable to many different situations. Not that I'm for the War on Drugs, but I find it funny that the entire undertone of the video is "Here's how to keep the cops from finding your stash! Hur hur hur hur."

[Derby FALs]

Ive seen that video before. Some of it is just a borderline handbook on how to get away with crimes.

I understand where they and many posters above me are coming from.

But you wanna not get arrested...dont do anything wrong.

Define wrong. You mean anything the King says is wrong?


That definitely has some good information applicable to many different situations. Not that I'm for the War on Drugs, but I find it funny that the entire undertone of the video is "Here's how to keep the cops from finding your stash! Hur hur hur hur."

That's because drugs are the major reason they are using to strip your rights away.

[Coronach]

Define wrong. You mean anything the King says is wrong?The last time I checked, we were a representative republic, not a monarchy. Now, that doesn't mean that every law on the books is right simply because it is on the books, but if people spent half of the time that they spend preaching to the choir out effectively opposing bad legislation, there'd be a lot less to pound our fists about.

Mike

[Derby FALs]

The last time I checked, we were a representative republic, not a monarchy. Now, that doesn't mean that every law on the books is right simply because it is on the books, but if people spent half of the time that they spend preaching to the choir out effective opposing bad legislation, there'd be a lot less to pound our fists about.

Mike

There is still no use giving them any advantage. Which, of couse, includes you. :evil:

[El Tejon]

I define wrong as legislation that our would-be Kings use to attack my rights. For example, when I lived in Chicago and D.C. they told me my guns were wrong. I did not agree and refused to comply. Rights are beyond the sordid talons of any majority.

In January 2009 a new government will tell all of us that our guns are wrong. You had best heed the advice that the video gives if you wish to avoid the loving embrace of our government.

[Outlaws]

The last time I checked, we were a representative republic, not a monarchy.

Bush I
Bush II
Clinton I
Clinton II?

Could have fooled me. The only representation I have is a lawyer, the politicians are ALL bought and paid for by someone else.

[CannibalCrowley]

But you wanna not get arrested...dont do anything wrong.

So it's your opinion that everyone ever arrested was doing something wrong? Otherwise your statement doesn't make much sense.

[Lucky]

El T how does a person avoid being Terry Frisked, in your opinion? The video says they need a basis to suspect you're armed - does a S&W key ring, or a gun rag on the floor count?



. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2585482423715017278)

[thexrayboy]

The last time I checked, we were a representative republic, not a monarchy.

That was the founders original intent. That effectively ended with the formal
entrenchment of Federal Income Tax and the Welfare state mentality brought about by Social Security which was made possible by the formation of the IRS. If the IRS wasn't around to take income tax the government would not have been able to add SSI and Medicare etc. taxes to the list of forced deductions we now face.

When the populace learned they could get free money by voting for specific politicians we became a democracy. Those with the most votes could ****
those with the least votes. Now we aren't even a democracy, we have devolved into a socialist welfare state.

[S&W 910]

What questions do you legally have to answer during traffic stop ?

my guess is just identity,name,birthday,address ,age etc

i have not been pulled over in a long time,but the next time i do and a cop starts with his snooping questions i plan to say i will only answer questions regarding my identity

[thexrayboy]

Per some recent rulings such as Hiibel vs Nv you are required to show identification if asked for it. To the best of my knowledge though you cannot be forced to actually tell LEO anything that isn't on your drivers license.
If asked you can politely say "I prefer not to engage in conversation, am I under arrest?" If he says yes STFU and lawyer up. If he says no say "Thank you, am I free to leave now?" If he says yes, depart toot sweet. If he says no you are being detained and you again ask "am I under arrest?". Continue in this circle until you are either told you can leave or you have a lawyer present.

[foob]

A red flag went up when I saw it was by the former head of the ACLU, but still informative.

Damn ACLU and their videos. Bet there's a subliminal message in there for <whatever you hate about them>.

[physics]

what kind of rights do you have when travelling with firearms? i'm assuming that if you have a gun in your car, it must be visible without a concealed carry permit. does that automatically forfeit your rights on search and seizure?

[Lucky]

That's a great question.

Plus one must remember that sometimes the police haven't watched that video, and don't really give a **** if you consent or not.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2585482423715017278

[slabuda]

goes back to what my father (28 yr police vet) said to me once..."admit nothing and deny everything"...and if read your rights ....."shut the hell up, say nothing, write nothing, sign nothing".."make them prove they have probable cause, do not let them search"...

he said they (police) will coerce you into giving up your rights.

a friend this advice to heart and used it once in the military they asked for a statement after a "bonfire party" (old furniture, BBQ and beer,,,uh dont ask lol) said we know you were involved He stayed everyone else left and as he was only one "caught" they said we will get you off if you sign a statement saying who else was there etc etc... well smart guy didnt sign anything and guess what, nothing happened, they even played good cop bad cop with him to comedic effect apparently.



basically i find it amazing people do not know their basic rights and are willing to give them up so easily, we even see it now with the "Sheep" saying well i will give up some liberties to make us safer. IMO giving up any liberties only makes us less safe

[Spreadfire Arms]

El T how does a person avoid being Terry Frisked, in your opinion?

not sure about other states, but in Texas you cannot refuse to submit to a terry frisk. it is a crime to do so and you can be arrested for refusing to submit to the search/frisk, regardless if it is later deemed to have been an illegal search/frisk. thus, after being arrested for refusing to be terry frisked, you'd be searched incident to arrest anyway:

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/38.03.html

Texas Penal Code Section 38.03

RESISTING ARREST, SEARCH, OR TRANSPORTATION. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace officer or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of the actor or another by using force against the peace officer or another.
(b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the arrest or search was unlawful.
(c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the actor uses a deadly weapon to resist the arrest or search.

and related sections:

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.51.html

Texas Penal Code Section 9.51

ARREST AND SEARCH. (a) A peace officer, or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to make or assist in making an arrest or search, or to prevent or assist in preventing escape after arrest, if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the arrest or search is lawful or, if the arrest or search is made under a warrant, he reasonably believes the warrant is valid; and
(2) before using force, the actor manifests his purpose to arrest or search and identifies himself as a peace officer or as one acting at a peace officer's direction, unless he reasonably believes his purpose and identity are already known by or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested.


http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.31.html

Texas Penal Code Section 9.31

SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

[Lucky]

Thanks. So your person is less secure than your vehicle, and your vehicle less secure than your house. I see.

A woman with a purse could refuse to have it examined? So carrying a bag would give you protection wearing a jacket doesn't?

[Flyboy]

Per some recent rulings such as Hiibel vs Nv you are required to show identification if asked for it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the Court held in Hiibel that state statutes requiring people to identify themselves verbally were constitutional, but that the Court ducked the issue of having to provide documentation of identity. That is, if asked, you have to tell them your name, but a requirement to show papers was never ruled upon.

Further, the ruling didn't say you must identify yourself, only that laws mandating such are constitutional. Not every state--in fact, I think only a minority of states--has such a law.

(And, for the record, subtleties like this are exactly the reason such videos are important: confusion works in favor of restricting your rights.)

[Geno]

I do not appreciate the fact that the video comes across as showing how to get away with illegal acts via the Constitution. That aside, the video is a nice reference of the protections that we have, praise the Lord, and that some “agents” of the state would like to have us not understand so that it through its “agents” can do as it chooses. I would like to see a similar video generated for public junior high schools and high schools to better educate children of their rights. In such a case, the producers of the video would really need to do away with the drug crap.

How many of you realize that under the No Child Left Behind Act, the students will NEVER again study the Constitution after 8th grade?!?!?! Talk about systematic de-education of our Constitutional rights!!! And that fact occurs via Federalism. Education does not appear in the US Constitution. Going back to the statement made in the video that, one viewing is not enough; view it many times. I submit the question, “How much more so important is it that our educational system include frequent (persistent even) reviews of our rights, but NCLB leaves us with no Constitutional reviews after junior high school? Justice Sandra Day-O’Connor tagged the problem well. Americans do not understand their Constitutional rights, and they are not exercising them. NCLB is exacerbating that problem.

Regarding the house example, it would be an interesting twist if they had presented a rental property (apartment or home) with a landlord present. Note that in Michigan, at least, whomever holds the lease holds the possessor’s rights to the entire property described in the lease. The landlord cannot give the police consent to enter the rental property. Furthermore, the landlord himself cannot enter the rental property without your consent, and their request enter must be made in advance and cause you no undue hardships. No landlord needs to enter your apartment or rental home on a persistent (daily) basis. If they do, file suit, go to trial, collect your $$$$$$, and laugh all the way to the bank. By the way, nothing says hello in court like a video of the landlord and police illegally entering your rental property. The fact that I was merely a rental tenant years back made me no less secure in my dwelling, than now that I am a home-owner. My castle is my castle be it rented or owned.

[El Tejon]

Avoid a Terry frisk?

Don't be where the police are.

[Working Man]

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace officer or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of the actor or another by using force against the peace officer or another.


It says "by using force against the peace officer or another".

So I can say "No, I do not consent to a search of my person" but I can not
physically stop an LEO from doing a search. Does that protect me from
anything found on me?

What is a "Terry frisk".

[El Tejon]

Terry frisk--where a police officer my stop and pat down a person suspected of contemplating committing a crime. "Reasonable suspicion", not probable cause is necessary. The scope of the frisk is directly tied to the circumstances of the stop.

Terry v. Ohio.

[Working Man]

Thats unsettling. Best not look at anything not mine for too long then.
Is that state or fed?

[scurtis_34471]

For those who question why someone obeying the law needs to understand their rights and know how to use those tactics, consider a person like myself driving from Florida to my parent's house in New Hampshire with a gun in the car. I am protected under U.S. Code Section 18, but some states (i.e. New York) arrest people anyway in defiance of Federal Law. If I got pulled over in NY, I would absolutely not consent to a search.

[Flyboy]

I would like to see a similar video generated for public junior high schools and high schools to better educate children of their rights. In such a case, the producers of the video would really need to do away with the drug crap.
The problem is, "the drug crap" is the excuse usually used against middle- and high school kids, whether they're doing anything wrong or not. The cops are noted for pushing people who claim (whether honestly or not) to be doing nothing wrong to prove it ("well, if you're not doing anything wrong, how about letting me have a look?"). If "the drug crap" is the most common excuse for that ("prove you don't have any pot in your bag"), then that's exactly what we need to be teaching how to resist.

[El Tejon]

Working Man, Terry is an important United States Supreme Court case decided in 1968.

[Working Man]

Thanks El Tejon.

In case anyone else is interested.
It is kinda long that is why I did not copy and paste it in the thread.

http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/terry%20v%20ohio.html

[delta53]

very interesting worth the time to watch

[The Drew]

actor knows is being made by a peace officer,

There are no peace officers left... There are only Law enforcement officers...

[Lucky]

Does a Terry frisk include one's possessions, like a case or bag?

[Spreadfire Arms]

The Drew wrote:

actor knows is being made by a peace officer,

There are no peace officers left... There are only Law enforcement officers...

Peace Officers are defined in Article 2.12 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure:

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/CR/content/htm/cr.001.00.000002.00.htm

Art. 2.12. WHO ARE PEACE OFFICERS. The following are peace officers:
(1) sheriffs, their deputies, and those reserve deputies
who hold a permanent peace officer license issued under Chapter
1701, Occupations Code;
(2) constables, deputy constables, and those reserve deputy
constables who hold a permanent peace officer license issued under
Chapter 1701, Occupations Code;
(3) marshals or police officers of an incorporated city,
town, or village, and those reserve municipal police officers who
hold a permanent peace officer license issued under Chapter 1701,
Occupations Code;
(4) rangers and officers commissioned by the Public Safety
Commission and the Director of the Department of Public Safety;
(5) investigators of the district attorneys', criminal
district attorneys', and county attorneys' offices;
(6) law enforcement agents of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage
Commission;
(7) each member of an arson investigating unit commissioned
by a city, a county, or the state;
(8) officers commissioned under Section 37.081, Education
Code, or Subchapter E, Chapter 51, Education Code;
(9) officers commissioned by the General Services
Commission;
(10) law enforcement officers commissioned by the Parks and
Wildlife Commission;
(11) airport police officers commissioned by a city with a
population of more than 1.18 million that operates an airport that
serves commercial air carriers;
(12) airport security personnel commissioned as peace
officers by the governing body of any political subdivision of this
state, other than a city described by Subdivision (11), that
operates an airport that serves commercial air carriers;
(13) municipal park and recreational patrolmen and security
officers;
(14) security officers and investigators commissioned as
peace officers by the comptroller;
(15) officers commissioned by a water control and
improvement district under Section 49.216, Water Code;
(16) officers commissioned by a board of trustees under
Chapter 54, Transportation Code;
(17) investigators commissioned by the Texas State Board of
Medical Examiners;
(18) officers commissioned by the board of managers of the
Dallas County Hospital District, the Tarrant County Hospital
District, or the Bexar County Hospital District under Section
281.057, Health and Safety Code;
(19) county park rangers commissioned under Subchapter E,
Chapter 351, Local Government Code;
(20) investigators employed by the Texas Racing Commission;
(21) officers commissioned under Chapter 554, Occupations
Code;
(22) officers commissioned by the governing body of a
metropolitan rapid transit authority under Section 451.108,
Transportation Code, or by a regional transportation authority
under Section 452.110, Transportation Code;
(23) investigators commissioned by the attorney general
under Section 402.009, Government Code;
(24) security officers and investigators commissioned as
peace officers under Chapter 466, Government Code;
(25) an officer employed by the Texas Department of Health
under Section 431.2471, Health and Safety Code;
(26) officers appointed by an appellate court under
Subchapter F, Chapter 53, Government Code;
(27) officers commissioned by the state fire marshal under
Chapter 417, Government Code;
(28) an investigator commissioned by the commissioner of
insurance under Article 1.10D, Insurance Code;
(29) apprehension specialists commissioned by the Texas
Youth Commission as officers under Section 61.0931, Human Resources
Code;
(30) officers appointed by the executive director of the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice under Section 493.019,
Government Code;
(31) investigators commissioned by the Commission on Law
Enforcement Officer Standards and Education under Section
1701.160, Occupations Code;
(32) commission investigators commissioned by the Texas
Commission on Private Security under Section 1702.061(f),
Occupations Code;
(33) the fire marshal and any officers, inspectors, or
investigators commissioned by an emergency services district under
Chapter 775, Health and Safety Code; and
(34) officers commissioned by the State Board of Dental
Examiners under Section 254.013, Occupations Code, subject to the
limitations imposed by that section.


looks like a fairly long list to me.