"Don't Talk to the Police" by Professor James Duane

KYS

What a fucking joke! It sounds like to me your problem isn't with the site, but more so the United States Constitution. Go take your complaints to congress.

Dear anonymous, I think we need to start with the spirit of the laws themselves. Legislators can dictate that it is unlawful to eat a peanut butter sandwich, but, we have to ask ourselves, is it "just"? I think it would be obvious to most that No, it is ridiculous. Our just laws come about from natural circumstances. Or perhaps more specifically God's laws, or the Ten Commandments. This is the basis for our Constitution given us back around 1776. ((The common law(judge created law based on common sense and fairness) was made part of our judicial process when we were founded.)) And as far as I can tell, nowhere in the Ten Commandments does it say that I have the privelege to travel, so long as the state permits me and grants me a license to do so. Your license is a contract. Don't contract with the State if you don't feel compelled. This would refute the DUI circumstance. Although we know that driving while under the influence is stupid, there is no Constitutional law prohibiting it. And until we have an injured party, there is no crime. The State doesn't qualify as an injured party. The State is a piece of paper. But in order for the State to have jurisdiction to adjudicate your "case", you have to be a piece of paper too. You, as a State created fiction, will be seen in paper form as ANONYMOUS. If you agree, or likewise, don't disagree, that you are that piece of paper, not a flesh and blood human, they will have jurisdiction to prosecute you. When the court asks you your name, or if they ask you to state your name for the record, and you give it, you are contracting with the court to give this piece of paper a flesh and blood basis. The State has no authority granted them from the Constitution to prosecute a man for traveling, whether by foot, boat, car, plane,... unless there is an injured party during the course of such travels. The same can be said of drug use. Who is the injured party? UCC 1-103.6 (Here I am citing the Uniform Commercial Code, because after all, the courts only jurisdiction is commercial law or contracts, and the UCC covers contract law.) Am I going to file a claim against myself for smoking a joint? Why would the State feel it had that right? Unless the State felt that I, the flesh and blood human, were damaging there property. In the eyes of the State that is what we are. We are State property as long as we agree to be(contract with), or with our acquiesence, do the same. Without asserting your rights, you in fact, waive your rights. UCC 1-207.9 My point to all this is, that these laws give the State a way to collect more tax revenue, through citations, fines, court costs, yada yada yada... I'm sorry, I forgot to mention domestic disputes. Same holds true. There are so many laws on the books that you can't get through a day without breaking at least one. There is alot more to the story, but I think this should give you a good idea of where to look for more info. In summary, it seems to me that you are absolutely correct in your argument that we would have alot less convictions for these crimes if we asserted our rights, but then again, I probably wouldn't send someone to jail for eating a peanut butter sandwich:)

"The public has a vested interest in the successful investigation and prosecution of criminals. If this website is successful, we as a society will need to be prepared to either change the constitution or get used to criminals getting away with their crimes virtually all the time."

I've never seen anything on this site about getting people "off the hook" for crimes.

This site seems to show one how to protect themselves from the evil government against malum prohibitum "crimes". Or, victimless crimes. All traffic laws are unconstitutional. They are there to do nothing more than generate money for the government.

Rape, Murder, etc..., all have VICTIMS! Traffic codes/laws/taxes have no victims. Victim crimes have been covered for a couple thousand years. Victim crimes in the USA today are meaningless when it comes to government. The Gov. gets no monies to feed the pigs if you murder someone. But, if you speed, don't stop at that stop sign at 3am when no other cars are on the street, the bullies in blue will get you, drag you before a lower "fake" judge, (usually a mere highschool grad) and tax your ass! Fine=Tax.

This is what happens when the people in a country like this are to damn lazy to pay attention to what is going on. This is what happens when you allow a system to be run by dirt bag lawyers aka shysters.

Your comparison is just plain stupid. We have no need for traffic laws.

Ever notice we used to have police, which did just that? Now we have law enforcement officers, who could care less about your needs, and are employed simply to collect money on fake laws that trample on our rights.

I do not advocate circumventing or reducing constitutional rights. I am only pointing out that there is currently a “balance” to the system. Most do not even have a concept of what their rights really are. If more people did, then convictions would inevitably decrease.

The simple math is that the more people know their rights and exercise them, the fewer convictions that will be made. If you are a criminal then that is great news. If you are police officer, you could care less, you will still get the same pay check. If you are a citizen, then that should alarm you. When you daughter is assaulted or your car is stolen expect the police to have less success than ever in their investigation. The perp just needs to remain silent, refuse the search, and ask for a lawyer and his odds of escaping prosecution will skyrocket. Of course the innocent will also be protected from false arrest and conviction - they just will no longer be protected from criminals. Oh well, that is how the scales of justice teeter and totter.

Police do not make any amount of money for an arrest. In fact, most arrests COST the government money due to overtime paid to officers for court, piles of paperwork (officer is off the street, so we need to hire more), etc.

Think about it. If you pay the goverment $2000 for a DUI conviction the government has to pay the officer for the time he spent with you, the time he spent on paper work, and the time he spent in court. They also have to pay for the paper, the computer, the car, the gas, the uniform, etc. They pay for the clerks that enter the paperwork, the public defender, the judge, the District Attorney. They pay your probation officer for countless hours of time spent on your case. The list goes on. When it is all said and done the government is in the red. Trust me on that.

Wow, we as a nation are in big trouble when this is the view of the member of our citizens. The thinking behind this is really warped. These are our RIGHTS. Applying your logic to other issues makes it seem really foolish.

Example: "The simple math is that the more people know their rights and exercise them, the poorer choices for leaders that will be made. If you are a criminal then that is great news. If you are police officer, you could care less, you will still get the same pay check. If you are a citizen, then that should alarm you. When you vote is cast and your candidate is elected, you are the only one to blame. There are plenty of people out there who should be in charge and make those decisions for you. Laws will not be passed because people will have differing view points. Imagine how much money would be wasted by our government, business and private individuals if we let them exercise their right to vote. We would save millions of dollars every year by just appointing leaders to positions. Oh well, that is how the scales of liberty teeter and totter.

You need to research the reasoning behind why we were granted various liberties by our founding fathers. Face it, today we are losing many of our rights and people often walk around thinking..."there must be a law against that, people shouldn't be allowed to do xxxxx". Go ahead and give up your rights and freedoms. You will be much happier in the end.

USA,Inc. We have been a bankrupt country running on credit since 1933. When you say "They" what you really mean is "We" the taxpayers, we pay for time spent on paperwork, overtime, paper, computer, car, gas, uniforms, etc. With your statement that, "If more people did(know there rights), then convictions would inevitably decrease." Then with that understanding, we can conclude that either the law is flawed or the individual wasn't a criminal to begin with, or perhaps there simply hasn't been sufficient evidence supplied to convict. Again if there was an injured party, then there is someone to make a claim against that person held as suspect. After such claim is made, then the case can be brought to trial and the accused can be given a trial by a jury of peers. And by the way I don't trust you. Simply stating that with more convictions we get more bad guys is thoughtfully superficial. More on running "in the red." Our elected representatives were wise enough to put our money in the hands of the banking elite and give them the control over our money supply. This happened in 1913 and took the false name "Federal Reserve". If I were to have been given the power to print money, this is what I would do. I would, shortly after gaining such power, print more paper/fiat currency and give the country a relative boom in growth and productivity(the Roaring 20's). Then I would precipitously deflate the currency and make all the stock that was growing like gang busters, worthless, and in fact bankrupt the United States of America(1933). The whole while I am loaning this money to the U.S. Government to fund the immense growth using my printed/fiat currency, I will be charging interest on that currency and taking payment in the form of gold. Then, when there is no more Gold to be had, I will give the U.S. government a number to show the people as to how much money they owe me, and let the government come up with ways to pay that interest back to me. I might suggest an income tax on all income,(say the 16th Amendment, ratified or otherwise, tell them it is the law) in every form, labor, capital, wealth accession, and several others to be paid to me the banking elite. And to make sure the U.S. is good for the loan, I will have to ask for collateral, in the form of the only tangible thing that is left that I don't own. The people themselves. As long as the people don't catch on to what I'm doing, all will go smoothly, and I can keep my slaves working themselves to the grave. For it matters not who makes the law, as long as I have control of the money. Long live the "Republic?"

Amen.

The amendments to the Bill of Rights in question were written to protect the *innocent* and they lay out a rough procedure in handling those suspected of crimes (warrants, compensation for confiscation, etc.), as well as those found guilty of them (no cruel and unusual punishments, double jeopardy, etc.).

Your logic is circular. Juries determine guilt or innocence. You’re saying the Bill of Rights is there to protect the innocent. How would we determine that without due process? Only innocence exists without due process. The Constitution protects us all, until we are proven guilty, and even after that we still have some rights (no cruel or unusual punishments, etc.) I know it’s a hard fact to swallow, but one of the problems with juries and the assumption of innocence is that criminals will sometimes go free. I can deal with that, considering that in any case criminals will go free no matter what, and sometimes criminals even wear badges and are above the law. It’s the price we pay for a free society.

. . . and until drug users learn to control themselves and quit being a nuisance to society when they're high, drugs will remain illegal

And until police and uninformed dopes stop hating on pot heads and focusing on real crimes, I think we should assert our rights.

delegated to them by the people,

Not in many cases they aren't. Law enforcement agencies lobby lawmakers, so they delegate powers to themselves too. See the DEA for more examples of this.

If you don't like that, try moving to a different country where the average citizen contact with the police begins with a beating and we'll see how long it takes for you to come running back to this "oppressive police state" called America.

More of this "You don't like it? Move to xxx! [pick a country for xxx]", nonsense. There are plenty of countries where police don't batter citizens every occasion they get. Watch me do the same thing with the following sentences. Perhaps we should move to other countries with more sensible drug/police policies, but I love this particular country (US), and people have the right to petition the government for redress to change things here. I just dislike people like you that make my country the bigoted hateful place it can sometimes be. And if you don't like that, then you can move to xxx (dictatorial country of your choice) where they don't have that right! Perhaps you would be more happy there, and please--do stay.

I know I didn't address your whole post. But I hope you can live with that.

And speaking of facts, drugs aren't even on the top ten lists of deaths in the US. The top 3 are heart disease, cancer and accidents (non-vehicular.) So we should really be illegalizing McDonalds and stairwells, if we want to use the safety argument.

"Everyone (U.S. citizens) has the same rights covered in the constitution."

Even non-citizens have these rights under the Constitution. Even "illegal aliens" have these rights.

The funny thing about this site is I believe the longer the negative post directly correlates with the longer criminal history of the author. Don't blame the cops for your misfortunes because I am sure they were brought on by you. I am happy that you no longer call the police because when I took my job, serving an a** like you is not what I had in mind.

What an intense scientific study you must have performed to arrive at such an mind boggling conclusion. I must say, I whole-heartedly agree with the gentleman toting the Mossberg 500, and I could write paragraphs as to why I concur, and believe it or not, I do not have a criminal record. I would not even hesitate to take matters into my own hands if someone were to invade my home. I have absolutely no faith in law enforcement - HAVING WORKED FOR AND WITH THEM FOR OVER 25 YEARS. I can count the number of officers on one hand who are worth the paycheck they take home. I am also sick and tired of having an officer ask me where I am going and where am I coming from if I happen to get pulled over for a headlight out, etc. It is NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS. This is still America, and last time I checked, I was free to roam about at will unless I was trespassing on someone's property, which the public highways are not. I am sending this website to all of my friends and hopefully they will send it on to their friends. People need to be aware.

The argument that someone MUST be a criminal if they stand up for their rights is SO played. I mean, c'mon find some new lies to believe!

Mr.Cop, the fact that someone like YOU is "serving" at all is scary to me. And it should scare all innocent OR guilty citizens in this country as well.

Real intelligent response, I would expect nothing less from one of the 'boys in blue'. Sounds like that 6 wks of training really educated you.

The real same "old argument" on this site is why cops are harassing people with marijuana on their person instead of busting real criminals. Look at every topic on this site and you will find some underlying tone on this subject. Fact of the matter is we don't make the laws that have outlawed marijuana time and time again. The simple truth is I don't care if your a hard core felon or a "weed smoker" you still are not a productive member of society. I believe everyone should know your rights but don't get mad at the cops for doing there job. Are job is to deter crime and search out and stop criminal activity.

And to the poster about getting pulled over with a headlight out, fyi we don't really care where your going or coming from. Ever think that maybe the cop wants to determine if your impaired by hearing your response to his answers. Last time I checked, drunk drivers that I have pulled over don't have a name tag on their shirt saying, "Hi my name is John and I'm drunk." That's why we do ask questions to the people we have pulled over.

Hitlers goon's were just doing there job as they were executing millions upon millions of civilians for, what was there crime?, being jewish? Everyone has a part in all that happens, in any attrocity, real or imagined. You might say we are either a victim or a victimizer. I usually root for the underdog. Our governments was set up to protect the underdog, not assassinate them. Look inside yourself for the truth, don't have someone tell you what the truth is.