It absolutely does, and that sort of perception was even recognized by the USSC in the 1960s in Terry v. Ohio. But there's another way that a cop's perception affects the way he does his job. Cops see up close and personal a lot of stuff that other people just hear about. When you're changing out of a bloody uniform and washing the remains of a drunk driving victim off of your hands, you may get real closed-minded about someone who tells you they are "perfectly fine to drive." My police career ended prematurely because another motorist didn't "believe" in wearing seat belts. And I was one of the first people on scene at the crash of a commercial airliner where 68 people burned to death before my eyes. Yes, I do see the world differently than most other people.

You also have to keep in mind that a cop lives and dies on his powers of perception. Things that are "JDLR" (just don't look right) are often things that merit closer attention and caution. I've heard in training courses that more than 90% of communication is non-verbal. I'm not sure how this is quantified, but I do know that any young cop that ignores everything except the words someone is saying to him will be unlikely to become an old cop.

Unless there is an existing relationship between cop and citizen, any disrespect shown the cop is a disrespect of the cop's authority and the institution that goes with it. The same people who have an automatic disrespect of the cop often have a similar feeling about the law. When you walk into a situation that was hostile even before you were introduced into it, there's not a lot of time for those nifty Dale Carnegie techniques. If you choose to take the actions of the cop personally, that's your call - they're seldom intended that way.

You're making quite a leap of logic here. My advice was similar to "don't smoke while you're putting gas in your car." If you're dealing with the world's most congenial and tolerant security officer, cop, or TSO, you can probably say anything you want to them. But I think we both agree that people in these positions are not always congenial and tolerant to the nth degree, and giving them a bad time when they're in the middle of doing their jobs just isn't going to come to any good end. Make your protest or complaint at the time and place that is appropriate.

Cops, TSOs and security guards are recruited from the human race. They are subject to the same stresses as everyone else. Most of the cops I know (and I've said before that I probably know more than most of the people here) are very patient, tolerant people who work well under stress. All the same, it just makes no sense to me at all when someone decides to bait, taunt, retaliate or test someone who has the power, at least in the short haul, to make your life miserable. This isn't an issue of civil rights. This is an issue of judgment and self-preservation.

My work causes me to be aware of many, many acts of police misconduct. Every one of them disgusts me, because it disgraces the entire profession. Yet, I have to keep in mind that less than 1% of all sworn officers are ever charged with serious misconduct. When I see a cop, I expect that he will conduct himself professionally. I sense that you expect otherwise. There is something to the theory of self-fulfilling prophecies.

Saying that my arguments are fallacious does not make them so.

Did you make a complaint with the officer's agency, or did you just save the memory to use when you wanted to make a point about how cops are just power trippers? By your own admission, you're basing this on ONE police contact out of several you have experienced.

There is a certain amount of salesmanship to the "may I search your car?" procedure. Pure and simple, it's a fishing expedition for contraband. If the officer has probable cause to search the car, he's going to do so, although he might ask first because a consent search isn't limited by the scope of the probable cause. It's a technique that results in the recovery of a lot of evidence. Trying to intimidate the driver into the consent search can invalidate the search, as it can be deemed as having been coerced. That's bad police work. If you let it slide, you've allowed that practice to continue.

And, if you don't want to consent to the search, just reply, "No, officer, I don't want you to do that. Am I free to go?" Repeat the question until you get a "yes" or "no" response. The officer isn't violating your constitutional rights by asking, and you aren't surrendering them by refusing.

At LHR, you're dealing with another culture where police are concerned. When I've compared notes with English and Canadian cops, we both become aware of how each other's methods would be often disastrous in the opposite environment.

And I'm not saying that you reject any authority. I am saying that you're looking for opportunities to challenge authority, and then you're offended when the authority figure doesn't back down and apologize profusely for insulting your sensitivities.

There is a joke sound file that pretends to be the answering message for the police department's voice mail system. It ends with, "...and remember, our job is to protect your butt, not kiss it."

It also calls attention to the speaker and identifies him as someone who likes to challenge authority. Not a crime in itself, but most people who do this are also in the habit of ignoring the law. Cops appreciate it when these people identify themselves, because it saves the effort of having to locate them themselves. It's not a violation of the law for you to call the cop an insulting name, but it's also not a violation of your constitutional rights for the cop to continue to observe you closely and carefully from any place the cop has a right to be. Once again, we have the alligator and swamp warning.

I've got it as "the basic rights guaranteed to individual citizens by law." There are lots of activities that would fall into your definition that wouldn't fit in mine.

Some cops drive fast because they can. I know that and so do you. I don't think they should do it, either, but they mostly don't care what I think.

There is a legitimate reason for patrolling a freeway in excess of the speed limit. If you drive with the flow of traffic, you won't see anything except the vehicles surrounding you, and those won't change much as you move down the highway. Drive faster than the flow of traffic, and you'll be coming up behind "new" people all the time. If you turn on your emergency lights, the people doing things they shouldn't will desist until the cop is gone.

I lived in Maryland for a year and a half, up until last January. I found MD drivers to be the most aggressive I have seen anywhere. That driving behavior has nothing to do with the presence of the state police or anyone else's police.

I submit that you're sending a non-verbal message that you're looking for trouble. While the TSA folks vary in their skill at spotting it, they're supposed to be looking for people that are acting differently. And if you get the "attitude," trying turning your own cheek and replying pleasantly. It doesn't keep you from making your complaint later, if you're still inclined. But I think you'll find trouble if you go to the checkpoint looking for and expecting it.

It is a well-known element of American behavior that, upon learning that the person encountered is an off-duty cop, the American will describe a traffic stop encounter that they are certain is unique in the annals of law enforcement. Congratulations, you came up with two.

That was an entirely fictitious illustration of what life would be like if cops went straight by the book and did not allow any interpersonal communication to enter into their decisions. The way it's usually done is called "officer discretion," and it works in the favor of the motorist more often than not.

Given that an airport security checkpoint is a special environment where no probable cause is required for a search, what rights are you referring to?


Given the condescending tone I often see here (especially when TSOs and other lowly government employees are under discussion) and the lack of recounting of experiences at Close Guantanamo rallies and Free Mumia fundraisers, my sense is that the concern here is far more focused on personal inconvenience and having to submit to the authority of uneducated, minimum-wage, just-off-welfare peons such as those employed by the TSA.

First, you don't have a "right" unless the Constitution says you do, and the courts (which interpret the Constitution) have determined that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply in every environment and situation. So I don't buy that increased airport security has violated anyone's rights. And the effectiveness of security is measured mainly in what doesn't happen, so that metric is largely speculation. As for the professionalism, I seriously believe they're doing the best they can. I get annoyed with the TSA and the security procedures, just like everyone else. But I also take into account that these folks have what may be close to the ultimate thankless job, so I think I tend to cut them more slack than you do.

By the way, I got a secondary search a couple of weeks ago. Don't know why, probably never will. The TSO could have been making a training film for professional conduct. I still don't feel violated.

I'm missing the Iraq reference, but I think you're missing my point. Don't mess with the alligator while you're still in the swamp. Unless you're about to be injured, do what you're told and be polite. When you're done, ask for the appropriate identifiers and make your complaint, if you're inclined. In the airport situation, you'll be more likely to make your plane.

In a police situation, go to jail when you probably could have avoided it. There's a time and place for everything. If you are so much wiser and more mature than the cop, demonstrate it by controlling yourself.

I agree on all points except the cop acting badly. The cop was acting to modify the behavior of the motorist. And it appeared to have worked, at least for the moment. There is a lot of parenting behavior in police work, and sometimes it involves teaching people things they should have learned as a child - like when to keep your mouth shut.

A common complaint that seldom has any factual support. There have been a few instances where municipalities have used traffic fines as a disproportionate source of funding. It's far more common that there is no incentive for cops to write tickets. As a patrol officer, I could have gone years without writing a ticket and no one would have said a word to me about it. One of my academy classmates made it to his ten-year anniversary and still had most of his original issue ticket book of 25 citation forms.

If I wrote a standard (e.g. not something aggravated, like DUI or reckless driving) moving violation ticket, and the violator took it to trial, the city lost money, as the bill for the prosecutor's time and my overtime far exceeded the standard fine, and that assumed the violator was found guilty, which was not always the case.

See my response on this above. And cops that are truly bad drivers don't remain cops for very long. If your license gets suspended or you wreck your car, you're inconvenienced. The cop that does that is going to be disciplined or fired, especially if it happens more than once. And he spends a good chunk of his working life in that car.

Nice to hear, and I agree that the CHP is a good agency, but they are no better or worse than cops anywhere else, all other things being equal.

If you ask for a lawyer in a situation where you're entitled to one, and you're refused, you have your court case in the bag. There are many situations where you may think you have a right to have an attorney present, when in fact you do not.

Even so, it's a good idea to know your rights (not just what you think they might be, which is probably wrong). I taught criminal justice full time for eight years. I can tell you that my typical student, whom you might expect to have an above-average interest in the topic, didn't have a clue.

Are you basing this statement on the single incident you detailed above? That's quite an assumption for having so little data. If I see you respond rudely to a TSO in an airport, would it be fair for me to assume that you are emotionally unstable and anti-social? Wow, you have no business getting on an airplane.

By the way, I know several cops who are members of the ACLU. Granted, it's unusual, but most of the cops I know are committed to working within the law. Doing otherwise invites lawsuits and FBI civil rights investigations.

'Tude? I think I've been very polite and reasoned. That you do not agree with me does not mean that I am wrong (or that I have a "'tude").

I don't know of anyone that can't be made to lose their temper. Cops that use force out of anger lose their jobs, and even wind up in jail. If you know of a way to recruit these perfect, saintlike human beings, I think you could make a lot of money. Please keep in mind that virtually every major police agency in the country is heavily recruiting, and the reason they can't find enough cops is because they turn away too many applicants whom they feel are unqualified. Bad credit, poor driving record, drug use, even a minor criminal record, poor physical condition, poor writing skills - any of those will get you DQ'ed. Of those that get past that gauntlet, some get disqualified on the psychological screening. Did you have to take a psych test to get your job? Can you be compelled to take another one to keep it? I think you're being a little too judgmental about the quality of American police.

By the way, remember that comment I made about people here being condescending? Why is someone making an honest living as a security officer a "droid"? Are you that socially superior to him, and how do you determine this?

Nasty authority figure complex you have there. Have you considered counseling?

I worked in an era that mostly predated dashcams in patrol cars. Cops still got fired for misconduct, and other cops still reported them and testified against them. Do cops protect their own? Sure, sometimes. So do members of every other profession I can think of. Please make an argument for me that supports that this covering up is the standard, rather than the exception.

I'd definitely consider that counseling.

Well, friends, this has been fun, but I've spent too much time on this dialogue when I should have been doing actual work. Take care, and if you choose to wave at the next policeman you see, please use all of your fingers.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!! The Founding Fathers almost unanimously believed in natural law, that all people had basic rights that exist independent of government. The people surrendered some of their rights and freedoms to the national government and also to state and local governments. However, copwriter is 180 degrees from the truth of which party does not have a right unless the Constitution says.

Some delegates to the Constitutional Convention were not convinced that Americans had rights other than those specified in the Constitution. Therefore, the Bill of Rights included the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It is distressing that a law enforcement officer who taught criminal justice full time for eight years misstated such a fundamental tenet of our government. But now some other views make sense.

And I was one of the first people on scene at the crash of a commercial airliner where 68 people burned to death before my eyes.

Interesting that you would make this claim here, on a forum where the members are more knowledgeable than the general public about such things. You see, I recognized the "68 dead" number. However, the only one I'm aware of was American Eagle, and they died upon impact in Indiana after suffering icing.

Please elaborate......

Please square that statement with the 9th and 10th Amendment, to wit:

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Not a lawyer, but my understanding was that the courts have defined what was "reasonable" in terms of searches and seizures, as opposed to outright saying it doesn't apply.

different accident

Admitting your bias is great. Now just keep it in mind when forming our arguments.

Unless, of course, the officer is disrespectful in the initial contact. And when the officer is disrespectful then he is disrespecting the trust that the public has placed in him and disrespecting his duty as an officer.

...and vice versa.

That I would agree with - but for different reasons.

Exactly. I agree with you. The cop can easily abuse his authority to make your life miserable. So be afraid of them, like you're afraid of anything that can hurt you.

You sense incorrectly. I just consider being respectful of a citizen to be part of being professional. They usually are.

No, you making fallacious arguments makes them fallacious. I'm just pointing it out.

To answer your question, yes I made a complaint. Nothing happened. An illegal search seems to be considered to be no big deal unless something is found. Of course in my case nothing was found.

Of course there is. I mean if you made it clear that the "person of interest" was giving up his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches then I doubt you'd get many to go for it. Many times it seems this "salesmanship" is dishonest - but salesmen often are.

Yes, getting around the bill of rights often does. Of course it leads to things like calling people "enemy combatants" and deciding it's just easier to ignore their rights completely - but you get the evidence you want, right?

In my case that's what I did. He said he was going to search my car anyway. I asked if I was free to go, he said no. He had no probable cause but my lawyer said that since there was no real impact of the search, other than my being handcuffed and held illegally in the back of a police car for a while, that a civil suit would be fruitless.

So like you my outlook is framed by my experiences. I no longer trust the police as much as I once did.

I really fail to see how courtesy won't work in America. I fail to see how the TSA "barkers" are necessary. The Americans in line with me in LHR didn't fail to respond to the polite security folks just because they weren't barked at.

And I'm saying that if cops are gonna treat everyone like perps then they will get treated like jack-booted thugs. It's a vice versa.

Don't worry, every industry makes fun of their customers. As an IT person we love to talk about how stupid people are when in front of a keyboard.

When you piss off an alligator it injures you. It seems like you're advocating that a copy can injure you if you piss him off. While I free admit it happens I still think it's wrong.

That displays a disturbing lack of understanding of the constitution for a cop.

Did you ever let a fellow LEO off for speeding when he showed you his badge? I've got an acquaintance that likes to drive fast. He's got an M3 Convertible - very fast car. He's also a reserve police officer. His main reasons for being a reserve police officer are: 1. Driving fast and getting out of it. 2. Carrying a gun whenever, which is hard in a state that really doesn't do CCP. 3. Getting more slack when it comes to having parties - the town he live in has hard-core noise ordinances.

Now you can say that he's a bad example, except for this: The getting out of free card that the badge provides for speeding would be useless if it wasn't honored by every copy he runs in to. City police, county sherrifs, CHP...on one speed run alone to Vegas he got pulled over 3 times. Got off every time. I guess it's just a question of what you consider to be misconduct - I find that particular example to be pretty widespread.

That's totally kosher. Although one time, at about 1am, I was passed by a pair of Rancho Cordova cruisers going at least 85, without their lights, on the freeway. I can see no real reason for that. I called their non-emergency number but again there was a lack of interest in the threat to public safety they posed.

I submit that the TSA is provoking their message with the barking and such long before they see you. Furthermore their bosses have made flying so painful that to expect us, the customer, to be polite and happy is unreasonable. Even just doing their job 100% professionally they're going to have the deal with unhappy people. But their attitude makes it a lot worse. I again point towards LHR, as silly as their policies are, as an example of a better way to do it.

No, I just don't complain *here*. I complain elsewhere - like places where drivers post. :)

Wow, that's really scary to hear from a cop. I thought they trained you guys better than that when it came to laws. I mean I know you're not lawyers but damn.

I think you're either setting the bar way too low or saying that they're hiring people without the ability to be courteous.

I took two trips this summer - one to the UK and one to FLL. I always get secondary since I'm not supposed to take my shoes off. At SFO they were tolerable - I'm hesitant to attribute rudeness to what may simply be a lack of facility with the English language. FLL was flawless. I even went out of the way to go to the supervisor, point out the guy who did the screening, and say that he was awesome and to please thank him for me. The UK was fairly polite, and ORD was insanely rude. So it can clearly vary. But when they're good I do make sure to thank them.

In a police situation, go to jail when you probably could have avoided it. There's a time and place for everything. If you are so much wiser and more mature than the cop, demonstrate it by controlling yourself.

Yes, we obviously disagree. I submit that cops long ago lost the moral authority to "parent" me. That's not your job - your job is to enforce the laws fairly.

Would you like to go read about red light cameras and speed cameras and try that again? Like when the cops send you a "nomination" that makes you think you have to pay something when you do - it's very fascinating. If a private business did it then it would be fraud.

I wouldn't say the guy I know is a bad driver - he's a pretty good driver. We've tracked together. He just drives very fast....and is still a cop.

That has not been my experience. I don't know if it has to do with pay or with the stress they are under but the cops in the nicer areas are...nicer.

For example, the cops in my town, although there are far too many of them doing traffic stops, are pretty decent. I go out of my way to avoid cops in, say, Oakland.

If you don't have a right to have an attorney present then you can't be under arrest. If you're not under arrest then get the hell out of there and away from the cops. Pretty simple.

So you're telling me that your job wouldn't have been easier if you hadn't needed probable cause or consent for a search?

Saying that you wanted to put people in their place comes across as a "tude" to me. The way you have presented your arguments, without the benefit of the non-verbal communication, presents a police officer that I would not want to interact with.

All of that is true for jobs I've held in the past - it depends on where you work. Have you ever had to get a security clearance? Any idea what that takes?

I think that there are a lot of good cops out there. The majority are, in fact. Sadly, the bad ones (and our definitions of bad differ) require me to interact with all cops the same way just to be safe.

It's kind of light the advice they give to people who have a lot of sex - if you assume *everyone* is HIV+ and act accordingly you'll be safer. Same thing - if you assume *all* cops are bad and act accordingly then you'll be safer. It's the same advice you offer on how to interact with the police it just comes from a different place.

I use the term droid for anyone, no matter how high up, that just mindless does their job without any intelligence or discretion. This is often applied to sales people - a sales droid is someone who doesn't know the product he is selling, for example. It has nothing to do with social status.

Ad hominem attacks are another form of logical fallacy.

Ah, so like some of the TSOs you are now practicing medicine without a license?

Remember folks: always be nice to the police because if you're not then they can hurt you. Just don't buy the whole "make a complaint later" BS. I mean if we can declare people enemy combatants and suspend habeus corpus then what's a little constitutional violation between friends?

Inalienable Rights
 

[QUOTE=PatrickHenry1775;8319036]WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!! The Founding Fathers almost unanimously believed in natural law, that all people had basic rights that exist independent of government. The people surrendered some of their rights and freedoms to the national government and also to state and local governments. However, copwriter is 180 degrees from the truth of which party does not have a right unless the Constitution says.



The founding fathers believed that our rights and freedoms were granted by God, not by government or elected officials.

The Ugly Face of Power
 

Although it’s needlessly verbose, everyone should read copwriter’s post of 2:18 a.m. yesterday to understand the authoritarian mindframe.

Stripped to its essence, copwriter’s belief is simple: If you do not dutifully comply with all requests by law enforcement personnel, the officer is justified in detaining you, searching you and charging you with whatever alleged offense he or she can think up, no matter how trivial.

The philosophical underpinning for copwriter’s view is his firmly held opinion that any person who would show “disrespect” for the LOE (as subjectively and instantaneously defined by the LEO) is a person who therefore is more likely to show disrespect for the law.

On its face, this is arrogant, circular, self-justifying twaddle. Under the surface, it’s a troubling example of fascistic thought.

“Disrespect” could mean your making an exasperated face when the TSA officer tells you to take off your belt, or your telling the TSO that she is not authorized to seize a 4-ounce bottle of prescription eye drops.

Each of these actions is constitutionally protected and non-criminal activity, yet each could be interpreted by a TSO as “disrespect.” If the TSO retaliates by demanding more extensive screening, well, in copwriter’s opinion, that’s your fault because you ignored the “human element” when entering the “alligator’s swamp” and failed to “use judgment” for “self-preservation” by not “keeping your mouth shut.” And so it also goes for traffic stops and other law enforcement contacts.

Copwriter’s argument is merely a facile way of saying, “You should have meekly done exactly what the LEO said without argument – even if the LEO was acting without authority.” My term for that is “police state.”

Similarly, copwriter suggests that complaints about law enforcement procedures and polices be made “at the time and place that is appropriate.” But, in many circumstances, failing to object directly to the LEO will be interpreted in court as acquiescence or waiver. If you don’t assert your rights, you can lose your rights, so the heat of the moment can be the “appropriate time and place.”

Notice the self-serving nature of copwriter’s norms. The LEO is not to be questioned, any push-back from the citizen is to be interpreted as suspicious, and all challenges to the LEO are to be after the fact. Mighty convenient.

Other posters have already noted – and I as a lawyer can confirm – that copwriter’s belief that “you don’t have a right unless the Constitution says you do” is incorrect as a matter of law, turns the entire system of federal jurisprudence on its head, and ignores the Ninth and Tenth Amendments as well as Article I’s enumeration of limited federal powers. It’s worrisome that someone who claims to have “taught criminal justice full time for eight years” would make so bald a misstatement. But it’s exactly the type of thing said by a person who believes that LEOs are “above” ordinary citizens, and it’s only a half-step away from “You have the rights I say you have.”

I believe to the bottom of my soul that all law enforcement will naturally drift toward authoritarianism unless citizens vigorously exercise their rights and keep peace officers within their prescribed limits. That is why all law enforcement agencies need civilian oversight with subpoena power, fully funded Internal Affairs Departments, vigorous press and Freedom of Information Act overview, zealous prosecution of civil rights lawsuits – and, most important, ordinary citizens challenging day-to-day abuses of authority.

I said I was bowing out of this, as the argument centering on whether law enforcement officers are all power-hungry fascists could go on forever. I'm not going to debate this with you further. I'm hearing gross generalizations of law enforcement officers based on a few random encounters, where I have worked closely with hundreds of officers and count thousands among my network of colleagues, through professional associations and conferences. I've been involved with criminal justice in one form or another for over 28 years. Yet, network administrators and salesmen claim to know more about my profession than I do. You'll probably never find out for yourself, but trust me, police work is harder than it looks.

I believe this discussion began with various definitions of "civil liberties." The one that I included in a previous post was from Microsoft Encarta, as I had that one handy:

plural noun
rights to freedom: the basic rights guaranteed to individual citizens by law, e.g. freedom of speech and action

Since then, I looked up the definition in a more focused reference:

Civil liberties. Personal, natural rights guaranteed and protected by Constitution e.g. freedom of speech, press, freedom from discrimination, etc. Body of law dealing with natural liberties, shorn of excesses which invade equal rights of others. Constitutionally, they are restraints on government. Those of you that believe you can do anything you want, so long as it doesn't harm anyone else--well, good luck with that.

I sent LEX-LGA Commuter a PM regarding this, but somehow I don't expect that he's going to bring this information forth to defend my honor. The crash I refer to is Galaxy Airlines Flight 203, on January 21, 1985. There is a Wikipedia entry devoted to it here. I was the second (possibly the third - things were a little disorganized) officer on scene, and was there for fourteen hours before I was relieved.

A lawyer calling my work "verbose." Pot, meet kettle.

Counselor, how can you know what my "belief" is? However, I do bow to you as an authority on what is trivial.

There is probably a survey on this someplace, but I wonder where lawyers rank with regard to cops in respect and trust?

Objection! Facts not in evidence! However, I will refer you to JakiChan, who refers to people he perceives as beneath himself on the social scale as "droids."

What on earth did you folks do to make yourselves so important and self-righteous?

And there, gang, is where I will leave it. I will do my best to not respond to further assaults on my chosen profession from people who don't seem to know what they are talking about, but talk about it with tremendous conviction. Yes, "conviction" is a good word there.

Tko
 

Everyone following this thread should note that, in his most recent post above, copwriter:

1) Fails to rebut the several posts which challenge his novel assertion that "you don't have a right unless the Constitution says you do";

2) Ignores the argument that failure to challenge a LEO in the heat of the moment (his recommended course of action) could be constued by a court as acquiesence to or waiver of the LEO's actions;

3) Fails to respond to the argument that his viewpoint reduces to a belief that citizens should meekly comply with law enforcement requests, even when the request is outside the scope of the LEO's authority;

4) Ignores the challenge to his self-serving "people who question LEOs are more likely to be criminals" claptrap; and

5) Casts aspersions upon my profession, while complaining that people paint peace officers with a bad brush. (Generally speaking, cops dislike lawyers, because we are sticklers for those pesky things called "rights" and, on a good day, demonstrate that the cop on the witness stand is a lying sack of sh*t who made a pretextual stop without probable cause.)

I leave it up to the readers of the thread, but I think I know who lost this argument.

Maybe you'll keep your word this time.

Correction. I refer to people who do their job unintelligently to be droids. You may want to try and make it out as some sort of class warfare (I sense an inferiority complex regarding being in the law enforcement profession perhaps?) but I don't care where someone is on the "social scale" - if they are doing their job without dedication and passion then they are droids. I changed doctors because he was a medical droid but I suppose that those concerned with social standing would say he was "above" me.

Where I live there is more value placed on intelligence and ability to execute than on social status. Smart > dumb. But hey, if you want to

What happened to make you so sensitive about the perception of cops? What made you so concerned with what others think? Maybe your parents didn't think being a cop was good enough or something? When done properly I think it's a fine and noble profession. Don't worry, I bet they still loved you.

I sent LEX-LGA Commuter a PM regarding this, but somehow I don't expect that he's going to bring this information forth to defend my honor.

Indeed. And that's because with an attitude such as you've displayed here, I would first have to be convinced that there is anything there to defend. I've seen no evidence thus far - only arrogance and condescension.

Self proclaimed honor is generally transparent, sometimes bordering on nonexistent. Sorry - I was sworn and commissioned to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Anything lower than that is at my choosing.

You're not criticising the government when you call someone a fascist because they're just doing they're job - you're insulting an individual because they have the audacity to expect you to follow the same rules that everyone else is following.

"This policy is ineffective and a waste of resources." is faaaaaar different from "you fascist thug, how dare you aske me to remove my shoes!"

You may equate them as the same, but one is directed towards the policy (aka government) and one is directed towards the individual.

One is civilized, the other is not, and they send very different messages about how you will act, and how you feel about authority and following the rules.

There are plenty of laws that I dislike, but I still follow them - heck, there are plenty of rules at work that I think are ineffective and a waste of resources, but I still enforce them.

My favorite quote this year; it's from the Sarah Silverman program:


Cop: Ma'am, do you know why I pulled you over?

Sarah Silverman: Because you got all Cs in high school?