PDA

View Full Version : Suspect detained over 'extremist' bumper sticker ?



BrianW
05-08-2009, 09:28 AM
from WND http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97374

Posted: May 07, 2009
10:45 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/misc/tread2two.jpg

A Louisiana driver has been stopped and detained for having a "Don't Tread on Me" bumper sticker on his vehicle and warned by a police officer about the "subversive" message it sent, according to the driver's relative.
The situation developed in the small town http://kona.kontera.com/javascript/lib/imgs/grey_loader.gif
(http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97374#) of Ball, La., where a receptionist at the police department told WND she knew nothing about the traffic stop, during which the "suspect" was investigated for "extremist" activities, the relative said.
It followed by only a few weeks the release of a Department of Homeland Security report[ (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97374#) "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" (http://wnd.com/images/dhs-rightwing-extremism.pdf) , which prompted outrage from legislators (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95317) and a campaign calling for the resignation of DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=96406).
The report cites individuals who sport certain bumper stickers on their vehicles as suspect, and it was delivered to tens of thousands of local law enforcement officers across the nation.


According to the relative, the situation happened this way:
Her brother-in-law was driving home from work through the town that has a local reputation for enhancing its budget by stopping speeders and ticketing them. He was pulled over by police officers who told him "he had a subversive survivalist bumper sticker on his car."

"They proceeded to keep him there on the side of the road while they ran whatever they do to see if you have a record, keeping him standing by the side of the road for 30 minutes," she told WND.
Finding no record and no reason to keep him, they warned him and eventually let him go, she said.


WND is withholding the driver's name and the relative's name at their request. However, the situation was described on the American Vision blog, too. (http://www.americanvision.org/the-american-vision-blog/man-detained-for-displaying-dont-tread-on-me-bumper-sticker)

Hope y'all are ready for the Thought Police

JDogger
05-08-2009, 10:49 AM
If you're not guilty of anything you have nothing to fear. Right?

badbullgator
05-08-2009, 11:21 AM
If you're not guilty of anything you have nothing to fear. Right?


So you are saying you have no problem with someone being stopped for this? Not surprising that you do not care about freedom of speech or expression. You are all about a police state I guess. You would have no problem with the lefties being stopped of anti war stickers or Bush is an idiot stickers? What does not being guilty of anything have to do with some yahoo stopping you for a bumper sticker? I do have a probelm with being stopped for no reason other than that....just me I guess and after all I am sure I fit the RWE discription

Hew
05-08-2009, 11:28 AM
So you are saying you have no problem with someone being stopped for this? Not surprising that you do not care about freedom of speech or expression. You are all about a police state I guess. You would have no problem with the lefties being stopped of anti war stickers or Bush is an idiot stickers? What does not being guilty of anything have to do with some yahoo stopping you for a bumper sticker? I do have a probelm with being stopped for no reason other than that....just me I guess and after all I am sure I fit the RWE discription
No, he's making the apples to pancakes analogy that an individual being deprived of his 1st Ammendment rights by some hick police officer equates to the Govt. trampling the rights of jihadists in America planning for our destruction by conducting surveillance on them.

JDogger
05-08-2009, 11:47 AM
Police make profile stops all the time. The guy was stopped because he fit the current profile model. He was detained, checked out and released. Happens all the time boys.
I don't believe profile stops of vehicles is right. No matter what the profile parameters may be. We've chosen to give this power to law enforcement.
We have no one to blame but ourselves if it is misdirected.

Furthermore I doubt the veracity of a story where the only source is an un-named 'relative'.

BrianW
05-08-2009, 12:08 PM
If you're not guilty of anything you have nothing to fear. Right? Yes, you do!
You should fear a government (representative) that will infringe on your 4th Amendment guaranteed rights simply for expressing your 1st!
When one part of the Constitution can be disregarded, all of it can.

I suppose that you've never heard of mistaken identities or planted evidence.

I would have thought that you'd be one of the first here to speak up and say profiling is wrong, no mater what side is being profiled. :rolleyes:

The "veracity of the story" may be doubted but the validity of the argument is still the same.

Franco
05-08-2009, 12:10 PM
Is there any doubt that our rights under the 1st Amendment will be under a full-blown assualt from the leftist/progressives over the next 4 years?

The first major assualt against our freedom of speech is coming from the Whitehouse with support from our current "rubber stamp" Congress and House under the guise of the "Fairness Doctrine".

The new "Fairness" committee of the FCC, put together by the White House is a conglomorate of everything socialist. The goal is to limit conservative talk radio by offering the opposition a voice through tax payer finanaced support of leftist media.

Understand that radio stations across America are largely owned by public companies whose goal is to make money. These public companies are apolitical meaning they are willing to broadcast any view as long as it makes the company money. There is no money to be made on Leftist Talk Radio. Air America is a financial bust because no one listens to it. No ratings equal no revenue! So now, the Leftist agenda will be tax payer supported if the Whitehouse gets their way!

Mike Noel
05-08-2009, 01:25 PM
All I know is I just ordered me 2 of those stickers. :cool:

Steve Amrein
05-08-2009, 01:40 PM
All I know is I just ordered me 2 of those stickers. :cool:

I was thinkin the same thing

Mike Noel
05-08-2009, 01:55 PM
You read stories like the one Brian posted above and stories like this

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124174154190098941.html

and it makes you wonder who the real enemy is in the eyes of the current administration.....seems to me they have it ass-backwards. They are more worried about the rights of extremists that freaking HATE the US as opposed to the people that love this country more than most.

I am going to get a bald spot from all the head scratching I have been doing and will be doing for sure over the next 3+ years

Steve Amrein
05-08-2009, 02:11 PM
You read stories like the one Brian posted above and stories like this

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124174154190098941.html

and it makes you wonder who the real enemy is in the eyes of the current administration.....seems to me they have it ass-backwards. They are more worried about the rights of extremists that freaking HATE the US as opposed to the people that love this country more than most.

I am going to get a bald spot from all the head scratching I have been doing and will be doing for sure over the next 3+ years

Those out of countties extemists dont vote.

While I have old glory flying at the house, sing along with the national anthem at ball games, have parade float celebrating Independence Day( thats July, 4th for those on the left) and all the other things I do to love and support my country I am baffled that I may be on a terror watch list.

Franco
05-08-2009, 02:22 PM
You read stories like the one Brian posted above and stories like this

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124174154190098941.html

and it makes you wonder who the real enemy is in the eyes of the current administration.....


According to the current folks, it is anyone that doesn't agree with them. Just checkout Janet Napolitano's list ie. returning servicemen and others!

And, you have to wonder which side the President Of the United States is on. I sure do as he has not demonstated anything that would indicate that he is serious about our security. If we are not attached domestically, could it be because Islamic terrorist support and like him? Do they view him as a foothold on the USA in their quest for world domination?

JDogger
05-08-2009, 02:27 PM
I would have thought that you'd be one of the first here to speak up and say profiling is wrong, no mater what side is being profiled.


Isn't that what I just said? Profiling has been going on for a long time. A black man in a white nieghborhood, any van with NC plates going up I-95 towards NY (cigarettes), any car with CA, FL, or IL plates going trough NM (drugs), a young hispanic driving a Camry (must be stolen). When I was a teenager in NV the cops would shake you down 'jess cause'.

You're just twitchin' now cause it's your Ox getting gored this time.

Don't blame the actions of every peckerhead cop on Washington.

JD

Nothing says I love America like a secessionist bumper sticker, eh?

Patrick Johndrow
05-08-2009, 02:54 PM
Police make profile stops all the time. The guy was stopped because he fit the current profile model. He was detained, checked out and released. Happens all the time boys.
I don't believe profile stops of vehicles is right. No matter what the profile parameters may be. We've chosen to give this power to law enforcement.
We have no one to blame but ourselves if it is misdirected.

Furthermore I doubt the veracity of a story where the only source is an un-named 'relative'.

If they had stopped a black guy because he looked like a drug dealer or a Hispanic in a van for suspected illegal smuggling you would be raising holy hell.


Your hypocrisy is showing.

JDogger
05-08-2009, 03:12 PM
If they had stopped a black guy because he looked like a drug dealer or a Hispanic in a van for suspected illegal smuggling you would be raising holy hell.


Your hypocrisy is showing.



Originally Posted by JDogger http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=442517#post442517)

"I don't believe profile stops of vehicles is right. No matter what the profile parameters may be."

Your lack of reading comprehension is showing.

road kill
05-08-2009, 03:36 PM
I don't see a problem with pulling this guy over for that bumper sticker!

He is clearly a "Right Wing Radical!!"

Not any signs of him being a terrorist, illegal alien, drug user, DUI or any of the things we hold near and dear.

But the line has to be drawn somewhere!!:shock:

zeus3925
05-08-2009, 03:43 PM
The original post reads like a poor grade of urban legend. A relative said, "Blah Blah............."

road kill
05-08-2009, 03:45 PM
The original post reads like a poor grade of urban legend. A relative said, "Blah Blah............."

So....atttack the messenger??

lennie
05-08-2009, 03:46 PM
White middle-aged women with "FUBO" sticker, riding around with dogs in pickup truck!

What a profile....
I better look out........................

Bob Gutermuth
05-08-2009, 04:11 PM
Seems to me 200+ yrs ago, the sticker was in the form of a flag that represented the colonies. The cop was out of line and the govt that approves such Gestapo tactics is something to be afraid of.

Patrick Johndrow
05-08-2009, 04:58 PM
Originally Posted by JDogger http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=442517#post442517)

"I don't believe profile stops of vehicles is right. No matter what the profile parameters may be."

Your lack of reading comprehension is showing.

I read just fine…you qualify your statement with an “I don’t believe” and then you gloat in the fact that the injustice is happening to the right people. Typical liberal…you aren’t concerned about doing the right thing…you’re just concerned about getting your way.

zeus3925
05-08-2009, 05:48 PM
So....atttack the messenger??

Yep! Just like that fellow that got that cockroach nest in his mouth from licking an envelop. You believe everything you read on the net?

BrianW
05-08-2009, 11:15 PM
Isn't that what I just said?
Your 1st post (which I quoted) indicated that you were fine with people being profiled for their thoughts/beliefs. Your second seems to accept the premise that the DHS "assessment" justifies policing thought also. Imo


You're just twitchin' now cause it's your Ox getting gored this time. You can't see that we're co-owners of the same beast?



Don't blame the actions of every peckerhead cop on Washington.If this incident did happen (guess you didn't notice the "?" behind the thread title) do you honestly believe this stop would have happened 2 months ago, before the issuance of the MIAC report & consequent DHS assessment?


Nothing says I love America like a secessionist (?) bumper sticker, eh? And Janeane Garafolo says conservative rednecks don't know their history?!?

"Benjamin Franklin helped make the rattlesnake a symbol of Americans' reluctance to quarrel but vigilance and resolve in defense of their rights..By 1775 when Gadsden presented his flag to the commander-in-chief of the Navy, the rattlesnake was a symbol of the colonies and of their need to unite in defense of threats to their God-given and inherited rights."


"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression".
Thomas Paine 1795
When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they fall, one by one...

Edmund Burke

Bruce MacPherson
05-08-2009, 11:43 PM
I read just fine…you qualify your statement with an “I don’t believe” and then you gloat in the fact that the injustice is happening to the right people. Typical liberal…you aren’t concerned about doing the right thing…you’re just concerned about getting your way.

If Dogger get's unjustly detained by the Government he loves so much I'll gladly call all his friends to get him out. Anyone have a quarter they can lend me.

road kill
05-09-2009, 08:53 AM
Yep! Just like that fellow that got that cockroach nest in his mouth from licking an envelop. You believe everything you read on the net?


Do you beleive everything read off of a teleprompter??:shock:

DSO
05-09-2009, 09:42 AM
Police make profile stops all the time. The guy was stopped because he fit the current profile model. He was detained, checked out and released. Happens all the time boys.
I don't believe profile stops of vehicles is right. No matter what the profile parameters may be. We've chosen to give this power to law enforcement.
We have no one to blame but ourselves if it is misdirected.

Furthermore I doubt the veracity of a story where the only source is an un-named 'relative'.

:confused: Someone forgot to tell my agency and any other agency in my area. Sure would make things easier though. The reality is that we are bound by the "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" standards as are all law enforcement agency that I'm aware of. Tell me where in this country a law enforcement official can stand up at a press conference and say the defendant(s) were arrested as a result of a "profile hit". The reality is that there is an investigation and a gathering of evidence surrounding arrests.

Danny

subroc
05-09-2009, 09:59 AM
Since when is displaying a flag of the United States being an extremist?

I will need far more than one article and a bit more proof to buy into this...

zeus3925
05-09-2009, 10:00 AM
Do you beleive everything read off of a teleprompter??:shock:

Never get near the things. Read on the net that 'prompter use can make a person sterile.

road kill
05-09-2009, 10:03 AM
Never get near the things. Read on the net that 'prompter use can make a person sterile.

You maybe could convert one to a winger though??!!??!!;)

(very good!!)

Bob Gutermuth
05-09-2009, 10:14 AM
If the GOP had won and someone was stopped after the election for a pro Osama sticker, the left would be howling about it.

zeus3925
05-09-2009, 11:14 AM
You maybe could convert one to a winger though??!!??!!;)

(very good!!)

Maybe YOU could. I won't get near to those dang things. Get dependent on 'em and you get Alzheimers if they take it away.

cotts135
05-10-2009, 08:17 AM
Some of the people on this site have very short memories. It wasn't to long ago when our elected leaders decided to pass the Patriot Act. This greatly expanded law enforcement powers in who they could arrest, and what they could do when the word terrorism was involved. Take this for an example.

Take the case of Tamera Jo Freeman. Traveling from Los Angeles to Oklahoma City in 2007. Freeman gave each of her children three whacks on the backside when they spilled her airplane Bloody Mary in her lap.

A flight attendant confronted Freeman, who responded by hurling a few profanities and throwing what remained of a can of tomato juice on the floor.

The incident aboard the Frontier flight ultimately led to Freeman's arrest and conviction for a federal felony defined as an act of terrorism under the Patriot Act, the controversial federal law enacted after the 2001 attacks in New York and Washington.

"I had no idea I was breaking the law," said Freeman, 40, who spent three months in jail before pleading guilty.

Worse than that, Freeman lost custody of her children as a result of the conviction. Moreover, she was barred from flying and her probation required her to stay within Oklahoma which effectively prevented her from traveling to Hawaii for a custody hearing.

The severity of the incident was disputed by a witness that happened to also be a defense attorney. The attorney said that initially there was a loud exchange but Freeman calmed down BEFORE she became unruly. The attorney said that he sympathized with Freeman.

There is also the case of Warrantless Wiretapping during the Bush administration where he clearly violated Fisa statues (which is a felony) and spied on Americans communications. Certainly this would be considered a violation of the 4th amendment of the Constitution. What was heard then, as someone in a previous post pointed out was " If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about" That is as laughable now as it was back then.
My question I guess would have to be: Where were all you great defenders of the Constitution back then? For most of you, you defended these policies not realizing that the sword has two edges. These laws are pernicious in nature and we need to be vigilant and not get caught up in the moment and pass laws that infringe or violate the Constitution.

badbullgator
05-10-2009, 10:18 AM
Mmmm yeah, or maybe there is more to it?

BTW- she pleaded GUILTY to the charges

JOHNSON: A shame that no one intervened earlier
By Bill Johnson (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/staff/bill-johnson/), Rocky Mountain News (Contact (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/staff/bill-johnson/contact/))
Published July 21, 2007 at midnight

It is impossible to feel sorry for Tamera Jo Freeman.
No, you have to reserve that for her kids, a 2-year-old boy and 4-year-old girl, who for much of the past week have been living with strangers while their mom has sat in jail.
By now you have probably heard the story of how the 38-year-old woman single-handedly turned a San Francisco-to-Denver flight on Monday into a cussing, beating, finger-pointing episode of The Jerry Springer Show.
That it was even allowed to happen still stuns me.
Let us say you are in, oh, the supermarket. You see a woman, clearly drunk, simply smacking the bejeezus out of her 2-year-old boy and 4-year-old daughter.
What do you do?
In Tamera Jo Freeman's case, witnesses who later came forward told of the woman beating her kids even before they got on the plane. She had been drinking in the airport. And when the youngest of her kids bucked at going with her into the bathroom of the San Francisco airport, she slapped him and dropped him on his head.
What would you have done?
On the plane now, the woman, it is alleged, immediately sets in on the kids again, alternately cursing and slapping at them and then neglecting them. They were interfering with her ability to watch a movie. It gets worse.
The toddlers knock over yet another drink their mother had been working on. She starts hammering away at the kids with an open hand. The kids start wailing.
No one does anything.
Yet many, it turns out, had either seen or definitely heard the beatings, witnessed the kids spending most of the flight cowering, scared and crying.
Flight attendant Amy Fleming finally tries to intervene. "Mind your own business," Tamera Jo Freeman allegedly spits, before demanding another drink. Fleming refuses.
The woman then curses Amy Fleming and, amazingly, witnesses said, flings a drink at her. No one does anything.
Here's a part I really don't get. Tamera Jo Fleming allegedly leaves her seat and corners the flight attendant, screaming at her.
Not too long ago, such an act would have gotten you beaten up and handcuffed, or worse.
Two years ago, a half-dozen or so passengers tackled and beat a 37-year-old man who rushed a flight attendant on Southwest Airlines Flight 2161 from Philadelphia to West Palm Beach, Fla., after she asked him to stop bothering others.
Only last month, an off-duty sheriff's deputy had to wrestle and beat a man who went nuts and tried to open a door of a US Airways plane as it began its descent.
Amy Fleming had to ask a corrections officer who happened to be on the plane to sit next to Tamera Jo Fleming, you know, just in case. She also retrieved the plane's duct tape and stood next to the woman in case they had to strap her down.
Tamera Jo Freeman appeared in federal court Friday and was ordered held until Thursday. She is charged with assaulting her children and interfering with a flight crew, according to federal court documents.
The Federal Aviation Administration, in its latest report on the subject, says there have been only 33 reported instances of air rage between Jan. 1 and June 7. This compares with the 131 reported cases last year, light-years behind the 299 reported in 2001.
"We have no idea of the reason behind this trend," said Victoria Day, a spokeswoman for the Air Transport Association, an airline industry group, and none too willing to discuss the subject.
It could be post-9/11 hangover, the knowledge that fellow passengers will not now sit idly by when a flight crew comes under attack, says Diana Fairechild, an authority on air travel, health and safety who runs flyana.com, a Web site for those taking to the air.
She has read of Tamera Jo Freeman's case, and takes a different view: The woman, she says, may be a victim in all of this.
"This happens because people are herded in long lines onto planes, are treated like cargo in seats smaller than those on subways, with no food, no liquids and little, badly contaminated air," she said.
Well, she did apparently have liquids.
"It sounds to me," Diana Fairechild said, "like she just flipped. Every day, all over the country, ordinary people are cracking. I feel sorry for her. She's in trouble."
The reason no one intervened is likely because no one viewed her as a terrorist, she said. With a man, the outcome probably would have been different.
"For her, it was a good thing," Diana Fairechild said.
I still say nine out of 10 people would have held her down for the cops had Tamera Jo Freeman done the same thing to her kids on, say, the 16th Street Mall. We owe it not to her, but to the children.
"We can't know for certain," Diana Fairechild said, "what was actually going on in that space, at that exact moment. Most people have a sense of when to get involved. She was just a berserk passenger."
It is still a shame.

You can tell a story many ways.......... Becasue she did not try to open the door does not mean they knew she would not or what esle a drunk crazy person could do. Now I guess if she was not DRUNK and BEATING her kids, and Assulting the crew this would be a lot like getting stopped for having a bumper sticker on her car :rolleyes:

Mike Noel
05-10-2009, 10:26 AM
Some of the people on this site have very short memories. It wasn't to long ago when our elected leaders decided to pass the Patriot Act. This greatly expanded law enforcement powers in who they could arrest, and what they could do when the word terrorism was involved. Take this for an example.

Take the case of Tamera Jo Freeman. Traveling from Los Angeles to Oklahoma City in 2007. Freeman gave each of her children three whacks on the backside when they spilled her airplane Bloody Mary in her lap.

A flight attendant confronted Freeman, who responded by hurling a few profanities and throwing what remained of a can of tomato juice on the floor.

The incident aboard the Frontier flight ultimately led to Freeman's arrest and conviction for a federal felony defined as an act of terrorism under the Patriot Act, the controversial federal law enacted after the 2001 attacks in New York and Washington.

"I had no idea I was breaking the law," said Freeman, 40, who spent three months in jail before pleading guilty.

Worse than that, Freeman lost custody of her children as a result of the conviction. Moreover, she was barred from flying and her probation required her to stay within Oklahoma which effectively prevented her from traveling to Hawaii for a custody hearing.

The severity of the incident was disputed by a witness that happened to also be a defense attorney. The attorney said that initially there was a loud exchange but Freeman calmed down BEFORE she became unruly. The attorney said that he sympathized with Freeman.

There is also the case of Warrantless Wiretapping during the Bush administration where he clearly violated Fisa statues (which is a felony) and spied on Americans communications. Certainly this would be considered a violation of the 4th amendment of the Constitution. What was heard then, as someone in a previous post pointed out was " If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about" That is as laughable now as it was back then.
My question I guess would have to be: Where were all you great defenders of the Constitution back then? For most of you, you defended these policies not realizing that the sword has two edges. These laws are pernicious in nature and we need to be vigilant and not get caught up in the moment and pass laws that infringe or violate the Constitution.


Unruly conduct on an airplane is a little different than a bumper sticker that expresses someone's ideals....apple, meet orange.

Legacy 6
05-10-2009, 10:33 AM
No, he's making the apples to pancakes analogy that an individual being deprived of his 1st Ammendment rights by some hick police officer equates to the Govt. trampling the rights of jihadists in America planning for our destruction by conducting surveillance on them.

Hew,

I'm confused... are YOU saying that you think that stopping an american conservative is the same as stopping a known muslim jihadist? Or are you saying that JDogger thinks they are both examples of "justified profiling?"

Anyway, thanks for the clarification.

I personally think that JDogger DOES think both are fine.

In my opinion not linked to whatever poorly conceived notions JD has, the MAJOR difference is one (conservatives) has opinions of the country he loves, and the other (radical-extremist-jihadists) takes action against a country and people he hates.

I think even JD could agree with that, and maybe even be convinced that stopping a car over a historic Americana flag is interpreting the meaning of that flag and for what it stands for then and now, is unreasonable?

cotts135
05-10-2009, 08:03 PM
Mmmm yeah, or maybe there is more to it?

BTW- she pleaded GUILTY to the charges

JOHNSON: A shame that no one intervened earlier
By Bill Johnson (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/staff/bill-johnson/), Rocky Mountain News (Contact (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/staff/bill-johnson/contact/))
Published July 21, 2007 at midnight

It is impossible to feel sorry for Tamera Jo Freeman.
No, you have to reserve that for her kids, a 2-year-old boy and 4-year-old girl, who for much of the past week have been living with strangers while their mom has sat in jail.
By now you have probably heard the story of how the 38-year-old woman single-handedly turned a San Francisco-to-Denver flight on Monday into a cussing, beating, finger-pointing episode of The Jerry Springer Show.
That it was even allowed to happen still stuns me.
Let us say you are in, oh, the supermarket. You see a woman, clearly drunk, simply smacking the bejeezus out of her 2-year-old boy and 4-year-old daughter.
What do you do?
In Tamera Jo Freeman's case, witnesses who later came forward told of the woman beating her kids even before they got on the plane. She had been drinking in the airport. And when the youngest of her kids bucked at going with her into the bathroom of the San Francisco airport, she slapped him and dropped him on his head.
What would you have done?
On the plane now, the woman, it is alleged, immediately sets in on the kids again, alternately cursing and slapping at them and then neglecting them. They were interfering with her ability to watch a movie. It gets worse.
The toddlers knock over yet another drink their mother had been working on. She starts hammering away at the kids with an open hand. The kids start wailing.
No one does anything.
Yet many, it turns out, had either seen or definitely heard the beatings, witnessed the kids spending most of the flight cowering, scared and crying.
Flight attendant Amy Fleming finally tries to intervene. "Mind your own business," Tamera Jo Freeman allegedly spits, before demanding another drink. Fleming refuses.
The woman then curses Amy Fleming and, amazingly, witnesses said, flings a drink at her. No one does anything.
Here's a part I really don't get. Tamera Jo Fleming allegedly leaves her seat and corners the flight attendant, screaming at her.
Not too long ago, such an act would have gotten you beaten up and handcuffed, or worse.
Two years ago, a half-dozen or so passengers tackled and beat a 37-year-old man who rushed a flight attendant on Southwest Airlines Flight 2161 from Philadelphia to West Palm Beach, Fla., after she asked him to stop bothering others.
Only last month, an off-duty sheriff's deputy had to wrestle and beat a man who went nuts and tried to open a door of a US Airways plane as it began its descent.
Amy Fleming had to ask a corrections officer who happened to be on the plane to sit next to Tamera Jo Fleming, you know, just in case. She also retrieved the plane's duct tape and stood next to the woman in case they had to strap her down.
Tamera Jo Freeman appeared in federal court Friday and was ordered held until Thursday. She is charged with assaulting her children and interfering with a flight crew, according to federal court documents.
The Federal Aviation Administration, in its latest report on the subject, says there have been only 33 reported instances of air rage between Jan. 1 and June 7. This compares with the 131 reported cases last year, light-years behind the 299 reported in 2001.
"We have no idea of the reason behind this trend," said Victoria Day, a spokeswoman for the Air Transport Association, an airline industry group, and none too willing to discuss the subject.
It could be post-9/11 hangover, the knowledge that fellow passengers will not now sit idly by when a flight crew comes under attack, says Diana Fairechild, an authority on air travel, health and safety who runs flyana.com, a Web site for those taking to the air.
She has read of Tamera Jo Freeman's case, and takes a different view: The woman, she says, may be a victim in all of this.
"This happens because people are herded in long lines onto planes, are treated like cargo in seats smaller than those on subways, with no food, no liquids and little, badly contaminated air," she said.
Well, she did apparently have liquids.
"It sounds to me," Diana Fairechild said, "like she just flipped. Every day, all over the country, ordinary people are cracking. I feel sorry for her. She's in trouble."
The reason no one intervened is likely because no one viewed her as a terrorist, she said. With a man, the outcome probably would have been different.
"For her, it was a good thing," Diana Fairechild said.
I still say nine out of 10 people would have held her down for the cops had Tamera Jo Freeman done the same thing to her kids on, say, the 16th Street Mall. We owe it not to her, but to the children.
"We can't know for certain," Diana Fairechild said, "what was actually going on in that space, at that exact moment. Most people have a sense of when to get involved. She was just a berserk passenger."
It is still a shame.

You can tell a story many ways.......... Becasue she did not try to open the door does not mean they knew she would not or what esle a drunk crazy person could do. Now I guess if she was not DRUNK and BEATING her kids, and Assulting the crew this would be a lot like getting stopped for having a bumper sticker on her car :rolleyes:

Yeah it looks like I screwed this one up. There is certainly more to this than what I repeated. I should have known when I read she pleaded guilty that all was not what it appears. After a little more research I found this web site that I believe gives a more accurate account of the incident.
http://www.popehat.com/2009/01/22/2793/
I do however stick to my original premise, as most here agree that, an expansion of laws by the government with a total disregard to the tenets and values of the Constitution are an evil and pernicious undertaken.

JDogger
05-10-2009, 08:17 PM
:confused: Someone forgot to tell my agency and any other agency in my area. Sure would make things easier though. The reality is that we are bound by the "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" standards as are all law enforcement agency that I'm aware of. Tell me where in this country a law enforcement official can stand up at a press conference and say the defendant(s) were arrested as a result of a "profile hit". The reality is that there is an investigation and a gathering of evidence surrounding arrests.

Danny

Well someone forgot to tell the cop in LA

JDogger
05-10-2009, 08:24 PM
Hew,

I'm confused... are YOU saying that you think that stopping an american conservative is the same as stopping a known muslim jihadist? Or are you saying that JDogger thinks they are both examples of "justified profiling?"

Anyway, thanks for the clarification.

I personally think that JDogger DOES think both are fine.

In my opinion not linked to whatever poorly conceived notions JD has, the MAJOR difference is one (conservatives) has opinions of the country he loves, and the other (radical-extremist-jihadists) takes action against a country and people he hates.

I think even JD could agree with that, and maybe even be convinced that stopping a car over a historic Americana flag is interpreting the meaning of that flag and for what it stands for then and now, is unreasonable?

I'll say it one more time....I do not think profile 'hits' (as DSO puts them)
on anyone, anytime are justified!
I do think they happen all the time though, and are justified by the vague and nebulous terms 'reasonable suspicion' and 'probable cause'.

DSO
05-11-2009, 01:48 AM
Well someone forgot to tell the cop in LA

:confused: Huh? Get me close. Not sure which cop you're talking about. There are few thousand out there. Did he/she claim that the arrest was the result of a profile stop? How was it accepted? He/she does have the authority to make arrests in this fashion according to you. Just wondering how the whole thing shook out.


I'll say it one more time....I do not think profile 'hits' (as DSO puts them)
on anyone, anytime are justified!
I do think they happen all the time though, and are justified by the vague and nebulous terms 'reasonable suspicion' and 'probable cause'.

Do you really believe that reasonable suspicion and probable cause are "vague" and "nebulous"? These standards transcend all aspects of our criminal justice system. From the most basic criminal case to the most complex, attorneys scrutinize the basis of an arrest and will argue that one or both of these standards were not met and that the case should be thrown out. It happens in virtually every court case that I am aware of. I hope some RTF attorneys/judges chime in. I think your view is a little off the mark JD.(to the left I think ;-))

Danny

luvalab
05-11-2009, 08:12 AM
Is no one but me a little disturbed that anyone could be ignorant of the image in question?

Ignorance plus overzealous profiling, no matter what administration is in charge, is a pretty poor combination.

That said, the groundwork has been laid by the executive, legislative, and judicial branches both liberal and conservative over the extent of my own personal political consciousness, and surely for some time before it.

The blame game has little sway on this one, unless we are willing to point the finger at ourselves, whichever left or right persuasion we lean towards.

All the indignation here rings a bit hollow, frankly. It's our own darn fault.

brian breuer
05-11-2009, 08:21 AM
I agree it is a BS stop.

It is pretty much why I thought the Patriot act was a huge infringement on our civil rights.

I don't see much difference in the two. Which is pretty sad that both parties seem bent on limiting our rights.

zeus3925
05-11-2009, 08:54 AM
The World Net Daily is not a great font of journalistic integrity. It is a uber-right wing version of the National Inquirer. It is headquartered in Cave Junction, Oregon--not exactly the pivot of the galaxy. The area is known for the fine quality of its "smokin' weed". Perhaps the author of the original piece had sampled some of the local stash.

road kill
05-11-2009, 08:56 AM
The World Net Daily is not a great font of journalistic integrity. It is a uber-right wing version of the National Inquirer. It is headquartered in Cave Junction, Oregon--not exactly the pivot of the galaxy. The area is known for the fine quality of its "smokin' weed". Perhaps the author of the original piece had sampled some of the local stash.

I thought part of your party's platform was embracing and legalizing the "Evil Demon Weed!!"

just askin'

badbullgator
05-11-2009, 09:50 AM
I thought part of your party's platform was embracing and legalizing the "Evil Demon Weed!!"

just askin'


I am for it.

brian breuer
05-11-2009, 09:57 AM
I am for it.

You're an interesting fellow. I enjoy your take on things. I may not always agree but it is usually an interesting opinion.

Brian

Matt McKenzie
05-11-2009, 10:45 AM
I am for it.

As am I. I've spent far too much of my life engaged in this ridiculous "war on drugs". Too bad we didn't learn anything from prohibition of alcohol. Oh well.

JDogger
05-11-2009, 11:49 AM
Originally Posted by JDogger http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=443364#post443364)
Well someone forgot to tell the cop in LA



:confused: Huh? Get me close. Not sure which cop you're talking about. There are few thousand out there. Did he/she claim that the arrest was the result of a profile stop? How was it accepted? He/she does have the authority to make arrests in this fashion according to you. Just wondering how the whole thing shook out.

The cop who made the stop in the first post of this thread



Do you really believe that reasonable suspicion and probable cause are "vague" and "nebulous"? These standards transcend all aspects of our criminal justice system. From the most basic criminal case to the most complex, attorneys scrutinize the basis of an arrest and will argue that one or both of these standards were not met and that the case should be thrown out. It happens in virtually every court case that I am aware of. I hope some RTF attorneys/judges chime in. I think your view is a little off the mark JD.(to the left I think ;-))

Danny

Yes I do. I'm not talking about court cases here. I'm talking about traffic stops. Example: An officer believes he sees an impaired driver and pulls him over. The driver performs a field sobriety test and passes, but the officer has 'reasonable suspicion' that the driver is impaired and wants to do a breathalizer but the officer doesn't have one, the nearest is at the station. The driver is arrested, his car towed. At the station he breathes a 0.00 but he has still been arrested and must bond out and appear in court to have the charges dismissed. Total BS

It happens.

JD

DSO
05-11-2009, 12:56 PM
Originally Posted by JDogger http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=443364#post443364)
Well someone forgot to tell the cop in LA

You threw me with the LA as opposed to the La in the article. I thought you were talking about Los Angeles.




Yes I do. I'm not talking about court cases here. I'm talking about traffic stops. Example: An officer believes he sees an impaired driver and pulls him over. The driver performs a field sobriety test and passes, but the officer has 'reasonable suspicion' that the driver is impaired and wants to do a breathalyzer but the officer doesn't have one, the nearest is at the station. The driver is arrested, his car towed. At the station he breathes a 0.00 but he has still been arrested and must bond out and appear in court to have the charges dismissed. Total BS

It happens.

JD

Where on Gods green earth (hope your not atheist JD) could something like this happen. Not any where near me. There is no reasonable suspicion in the scenario you described let alone probable cause for arrest. You can't just "think" or "believe" that someone is impaired / jerk them into you station house /tow their car / charge them with a crime without any evidence or facts to back up your actions. Every aspect of detaining someone and or arresting them must be explainable. The arrest is not the end but merely the beginning. There will be many eyes scrutinizing the officers actions. Supervisors within the PD / prosecutors/ defense attorneys / judges / possibly the media. If what you describe "happens" it could only happen once where I'm from cuz that guy is going to be unemployed shortly and likely loosing his house in a civil suit. There is so much overtly wrong in your scenario that it must be made up.

Danny

JDogger
05-11-2009, 01:55 PM
http://ezinearticles.com/?Probable-Cause-In-DWI-Arrests&id=1194801
http://www.ncsu.edu/stud_affairs/legal_services/legaldocs/DWI.htm
http://www.drunkdrivinglaws.org/probablecause.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause
http://www.ncdd.com/lop-inst.html

Here's a few examples of the huge number of sites debating this issue. They'll lead you to many more. The fact that it is subject to such intense debate between police, prosecutors, defense attorney's, Judges and civil libitarians indicates to me that probable cause and reasonable suspicion are sometimes interpreted differently.

Many cases are tossed out for lack of probable cause and reasonable suspicion. However the traffic stop was made never the less, based soley on the individual officers assessment. Don't tell me profiling is never a factor. Puh..leeze!

Ever hear of planted evidence? That happens too.

Sure, many stops are good. and justified as well. However, officers are subject to the same errors and prejudices as any other human beings.

DSO
05-12-2009, 01:54 AM
Looks like you agree with me more than you disagree JD. Officers stop people all the time based on "individual officers assessment". He/she saw something that looked suspicious and investigated it. That's what he/she is obligated to do. That's not profiling, it's basic law enforcement. The fact that the issue is so hotly debated only enhances my argument. Law enforcement must be able to explain why contact was made with an individual. He/she has to explain their reasonable suspicion. He/she must be able to explain their probable cause for the arrest. If we "have the power to profile" as you stated earlier there should be no debate, right? After looking through the links you provided I noticed 2 reoccurring themes about the detention and/or arrest of individuals:

Take a look. It's what I've been saying all along



1) A reasonable suspicion is what a police officer must have in order
to momentarily detain a person to question them about a crime or to
do a pat down of their clothing should he believe they are armed
with a weapon. This measure of proof is more than a hunch or a guess. It requires "articulate facts", i.e., the officer must state the facts which gave rise to his suspicion in order to make it a reasonable one.

2)Probable cause is what a police officer must have in order to make an arrest or search a person's home or business. It is also the minimum measure of proof in order to allow a judge to issue a search or arrest warrant. Probable cause concerns probabilities and is decided on an objective standard based upon the training and experience of the particular officer making the arrest or search. Said another way, probable cause requires a reasonable person's standard of proof to justify the officer's actions in either arresting or searching, i.e., was it objectively reasonable for the officer to do what he did based upon what he actually knew and based upon his experience? The probable cause standard is necessary for a police officer to do a strip search of a person.

I didn't see much about an officers right to stop and/or arrest someone because they merely "fit the profile". So I guess we don't "have the power to profile" like you stated earlier right?

Danny

JDogger
05-12-2009, 10:40 AM
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p19901_index.html&ei=fH4JSqDSKJeWswOY9-zpCA&sa=X&oi=spellmeleon_result&resnum=1&ct=result&usg=AFQjCNGv__h7imR0x0UUEULD3n_fXRCopA

It's a lengthy article, this is the abstract.



The 1996 U.S. Supreme Court decision Whren v. United States widened police officer discretion in making traffic stops. Prior to Whren, officers needed to be able to articulate “probable cause” about suspicion of drug activity if they made a traffic stop. Whren permits officers to make a pretextual stop, perhaps based on a very minor traffic infraction, that puts them in a position to better discern whether drug activity is taking place or not. As even the most cautious motorist regularly commits violations of heavily regulated traffic codes, officers can “legally” make a traffic stop on virtually every driver of whom they are even remotely suspicious. In a racially-ordered society such as the U.S., officers who consciously or unconsciously make race-based decisions about whom to suspect of criminal activity are now legally protected by the Whren decision. After years of public outcry about racial profiling practices in minority communities, the Whren decision is discussed in the context of recent studies showing evidence of racial profiling on our nation’s roadways, and the interesting turn mainstream criminologists have taken with their latest research concerning “perceptions” of being racially profiled. Data from a preliminary qualitative study of officer views on racial profiling is discussed.



BTW, what are your thoughts on the stop discribed in the first post. Given the directive sent out to law enforcement, was the bumper sticker a basis for reasonable suspicion? Or was the stop pretextual in nature?

JD

badbullgator
05-12-2009, 11:23 AM
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p19901_index.html&ei=fH4JSqDSKJeWswOY9-zpCA&sa=X&oi=spellmeleon_result&resnum=1&ct=result&usg=AFQjCNGv__h7imR0x0UUEULD3n_fXRCopA

It's a lengthy article, this is the abstract.



The 1996 U.S. Supreme Court decision Whren v. United States widened police officer discretion in making traffic stops. Prior to Whren, officers needed to be able to articulate “probable cause” about suspicion of drug activity if they made a traffic stop. Whren permits officers to make a pretextual stop, perhaps based on a very minor traffic infraction, that puts them in a position to better discern whether drug activity is taking place or not. As even the most cautious motorist regularly commits violations of heavily regulated traffic codes, officers can “legally” make a traffic stop on virtually every driver of whom they are even remotely suspicious. In a racially-ordered society such as the U.S., officers who consciously or unconsciously make race-based decisions about whom to suspect of criminal activity are now legally protected by the Whren decision. After years of public outcry about racial profiling practices in minority communities, the Whren decision is discussed in the context of recent studies showing evidence of racial profiling on our nation’s roadways, and the interesting turn mainstream criminologists have taken with their latest research concerning “perceptions” of being racially profiled. Data from a preliminary qualitative study of officer views on racial profiling is discussed.


BTW, what are your thoughts on the stop discribed in the first post. Given the directive sent out to law enforcement, was the bumper sticker a basis for reasonable suspicion? Or was the stop pretextual in nature?



JD


1) The difference is Freedom Of speech is a guaranteed right; the same is not true of illegal drug possession. Apples to pancakes as my buddy HEW likes to say

2) The “war on drugs” is a failure for many reasons and this is one of them. Using it as an excuse to perform unwarranted searches is one of the many byproducts of the current drug laws that is a prime example of the intent to do good gone wrong.

3) Addressing the above search for reasonable cause. I can’t speak for other places but down here we have long had a saying “you can beat the wrap, but you can’t beat the ride” in regard to the type of illegal searches preformed based on reasonable suspicion about drug activity. When you are pulled over, if you happen to look wrong or just tick the officer off he will ask if he can search your vehicle. You of course have the right to refuse, however, doing so will result in them brining in a dog which WILL “alert” on your car and you will then be searched. Everyone here should know dogs well enough to know that the “alert” is an easily conditioned response and does not have to be accurate. I have seen them walk a dog past a car and then back to the patrol car only to say the dog alerted on it. Knowing dogs pretty well I can tell you if the handler got an alert he was much more in tune with his dog than ANYONE I have ever met in my life. In this case the car was searched and NOTHING was found and we were let go with no ticket for anything. I have also been asked to allow a search of my truck for no other reason than legally carrying a gun with a concealed carry permit. Again nothing found, but I am sure if I had not been legally carrying I would have gotten a ticket and sent on my way (NOTE: I informed the female office that I was a permit holder and that I had a gun in my console legally because I needed to open it to get my wallet. I no longer carry my wallet there…)

BrianW
05-12-2009, 11:38 AM
First I find it amazing a bumper sticker expressing a citizen's desire to have the government respect his/her rights can somehow be equated with a criminal act that that endangers life/property like DWI. :confused:
Also that a conservative/Christian/Constitutionalist newsgroup is implied as being pot smoking liars when it is the alleged actions of a law enforcement officer, possibly motivated by a discredited/withdrawn "report"(MIAC), that should be under discussion. :rolleyes:

As even the DHS assessment stated in Key Findings that
"The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific
information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence"; so what was the probable cause/reasonable suspicion here?
Does a bumper sticker "indicate plans to carry out violent acts."
Was the driver "targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors." simply bey driving down the street?
Or was the driver/passenger "focusing their efforts to recruit new
members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda" and hoping that the "Don't Tread On Me" would be like "Ask Me About AMSOIL"?

What would you on the political left be saying if the bumper sticker read "Support HSUS", or "Greenpeace" and the driver had been stopped for being a possible LWE ? Or if this had been reported on the "Huffington Post"?

JDogger
05-12-2009, 12:26 PM
So BBG and BrianW, evidently we agree. Traffic stops without reasonable suspicion do take place routinely, and they are BS whether they be for a bumper sticker or on some other pretext, so that an investigation for any other possible crimes can be initiated.

I'll say it one more time. Pretextual traffic stops are wrong, and that includes the bumper sticker story.

Is that clear enough for you Corey and Brian.

Sheesh!

JD

Hoosier
05-12-2009, 01:09 PM
So BBG and BrianW, evidently we agree. Traffic stops without reasonable suspicion do take place routinely, and they are BS whether they be for a bumper sticker or on some other pretext, so that an investigation for any other possible crimes can be initiated.

I'll say it one more time. Pretextual traffic stops are wrong, and that includes the bumper sticker story.

Is that clear enough for you Corey and Brian.

Sheesh!

JD

I have a friend who is a cop, and a few years ago he told me that they racially profile people all the time. If you're a white guy in certain neighborhoods, during certain hours, and they see you; they'll probably pull you over. The reason according to him is the only reason they would be there is to buy drugs, and it's dangerous for them to be there.

badbullgator
05-12-2009, 01:17 PM
So BBG and BrianW, evidently we agree. Traffic stops without reasonable suspicion do take place routinely, and they are BS whether they be for a bumper sticker or on some other pretext, so that an investigation for any other possible crimes can be initiated.

I'll say it one more time. Pretextual traffic stops are wrong, and that includes the bumper sticker story.

Is that clear enough for you Corey and Brian.

Sheesh!

JD


Not really. Pulling someone over for a broken taillight and then doing an illegal search is a whole lot different than pulling someone over for a bumper sticker. Sheesh, everybody knows it is against the law to run a stop sign, drive with an expired tag, fail to use a turn signal, not wear you seatbelt, however it is NOT against the law to have a bumper sticker on your car. My post stated illegal searches based on a traffic stop, not a traffic stop based on a bumper sticker.

BrianW
05-12-2009, 02:41 PM
BTW, what are your thoughts on the stop discribed in the first post. Given the directive sent out to law enforcement, was the bumper sticker a basis for reasonable suspicion? Or was the stop pretextual in nature?
I believe I was answering what you asked for.

The MIAC report was inflammatory & prejudicial and withdrawn by the issuing agency. But the damage had already been done with terms such as "political paraphernalia" and "militia propaganda". No basis there.
DHS assessment implicates guilt before any action has been committed based on association or expressed beliefs, no basis there either.

The alleged stop (imo - based on the information given) was nothing but harassment for an expressed thought under the pretext that the driver was a "subversive survivalist" (?!?) which is NOT a crime the last time I looked.
The story then stated that "he was warned" before his eventual release.
Warned of what, I wonder?
Not to expect any innocence until proven guilty?
No protections against unreasonable search & seizure?
That "the militia" crap won't be tolerated around here?

Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: "Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789.)

Roger Perry
05-13-2009, 04:08 PM
or Bush is an idiot stickers?

Where can I get one of them. :roll:

Bob Gutermuth
05-13-2009, 04:22 PM
I used to make lots of traffic stops based on something as simple as a bum tail light. If that was all there was to the stop the driver got a safety equipment repair order and was sent on their way. You would not believe the number of DWI s I got on such stops. You take what you get on such stops. I never stopped people based on a bumper sticker.

DSO
05-13-2009, 06:38 PM
So BBG and BrianW, evidently we agree. Traffic stops without reasonable suspicion do take place routinely, and they are BS whether they be for a bumper sticker or on some other pretext, so that an investigation for any other possible crimes can be initiated.

I'll say it one more time. Pretextual traffic stops are wrong, and that includes the bumper sticker story.

Is that clear enough for you Corey and Brian.

Sheesh!

JD

Pretextual / prejudice / profiling... Aren't we really talking about the same thing here? In your 2nd post you state that police, "have the power to profile" because "we gave it to them". Do you stand by that statement? If so, why do you continue post and add links about the illegalities of such actions? I don't get you JD. Why don't you just admit that your 2nd post about profiling is not accurate. Keep going around and around about this if you wish but I'm hopping off this carousel. Believe whatever you want. The fact is that your 2nd post is untrue.

YardleyLabs
05-13-2009, 07:12 PM
Personally, I can't believe anyone is taking this story seriously. An unidentified person relates a story concerning a ridiculous traffic stop of her also unidentified brother in law because of a bumper sticker. The stop allegedly takes place in a 96% white town of 3700 people in central Louisiana. The closest thing to a "confirmation" is that the town secretary knew nothing about the stop. Is this news? Is there any reason to believe anything at all happened? I would wait for at least a little confirmation before getting upset. If it comes, I'm sure the ACLU would be more than happy to represent the harrassed driver in seeking redress.

For what it's worth, I once received a ticket for having an obstructed rear windshield because I had a small Princeton decal on the lower left side of my rear window (behind the driver's head where it could not be seen). Discrimination? No. I was actually driving 75 MPH in a 55 zone. The traffic cop didn't want to give me a moving violation and gave me a trumpted up ticket carrying no points and no insurance implications instead. I was happy to plead guilty and pay.

BrianW
05-13-2009, 10:17 PM
Fwiw, I'm not a LEO and can't claim to know what the procedure for a "contact stop/warning issuance" may be in that town/county; contact report, etc.
I'd be willing to bet, though, that since the officer did not find anything in the car and there were apparently no "wants or warrants", it officially "didn't happen" and it'll be hard to prove/disprove a negative.
But if he had..?!?

And while this "story" on it's own may/may not have happened, I think something like this is the exact intent of the release of the report/assessment.
With enough "contacts", someone is going to come up dirty and go to jail, or more likely, be pressured into becoming an informant.
At the very least, it will spook some of those sitting on the fence back into the silence of the lambs.