Common sense question about gun control leaders [W:753]

[blackjack50]

Common sense question about gun control leaders

I clearly stated the words "probable cause."




Thanks for playing.

Stopping someone for spitting isn't a good reason to stop someone. And failure to signal is a traffic stop and doesn't give a right to search. And you asked for a "hint" of probable cause. Not actual probable cause. Yea thanks for playing.

 

[calamity]

1. Stopping someone for spitting isn't a good reason to stop someone. 2. And failure to signal is a traffic stop and doesn't give a right to search. 3.And you asked for a "hint" of probable cause. Not actual probable cause. Yea thanks for playing.

1. It most certainly is if spitting on the sidewalk is illegal, which it is in most jurisdictions.
2. No but it gives the cops a right to stop you, ask if you've been drinking and a bunch of other questions, including the request to search you and your vehicle, and it's enough to bring over a drug sniffing canine.
3. A hint of probable cause is often more than enough to initiate a search and have a judge deem it admissible in court.


You really are out of your league here. But, thanks for playing.



.

 

[calamity]

1. Statement of opinion. I disagree. As do many other people. In fact...more people disagree with you in this country than agree.



2. Still an opinion.



3. Wrong. You don't know it is destructive, and it is actually has benefits as well. Be it charity, guidance, or peace for those who worship.

That bigoted line of thinking is what caused the mass homicide of Jews and other religious people in nazi Germany, Soviet Union,
and China. Is that really the example you want to go for?

4. Thank God we have the 1st to protect our rights to worship and speak, and the 2nd to stop those who would take it.

1. I know. I share the country with superstitious people who do not understand science.

2. It's a fact. Are you saying make-believe is real?

3. Religion causes people to smash airplanes into buildings and burn people at the stake. Non-religion has never caused a single death, political ideology has.

4. That's not what the second is there fore. But...I'm not at all surprised you see it that way.

 

[blackjack50]

1. I know. I share the country with superstitious people who do not understand science.

Stereotype. Because one has faith...one does not understand science? I think the only person here with a lack of understanding is...you.

List of Christian thinkers in science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is JUST Christians. There are Muslim scientists, Jewish Scientists, and all other kinds as well. Try this on for size...I, a Presbyterian, believe in Evolution, the Big Bang (as far as it has been explained to me), and all other forms of Science. SCIENCE and RELIGION ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. You can have one AND the other. The thinking that one CANNOT be religious AND believe in science is equally as biggoted as those you seem to disapprove of. Which leads me to:

3. Religion causes people to smash airplanes into buildings and burn people at the stake. Non-religion has never caused a single death, political ideology has.

The political ideology of:

We should do away with freedom of religion

.
-Calamity-

That is the political ideology of the militant non religon. That has happened and it HAS caused the deaths of plenty. And you know it. That leads me to the next point:

4. That's not what the second is there fore. But...I'm not at all surprised you see it that way.

It is EXACTLY the reason why it was written...and the words of the man who wrote are VERY clear-

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, that could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

-James Madison-

If those are NOT the words of someone demanding FREEDOM for the common man...I don't know what is.

As for the other stuff:

1. It most certainly is if spitting on the sidewalk is illegal, which it is in most jurisdictions.
2. No but it gives the cops a right to stop you, ask if you've been drinking and a bunch of other questions, including the request to search you and your vehicle, and it's enough to bring over a drug sniffing canine.
3. A hint of probable cause is often more than enough to initiate a search and have a judge deem it admissible in court.


You really are out of your league here. But, thanks for playing.

Here is the definition:

Probable Cause for Arrest

Probable cause for arrest exists when facts and circumstances within the police officer's knowledge would lead a reasonable person to believe that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Probable cause must come from specific facts and circumstances, rather than simply from the officer's hunch or suspicion.

"Detentions" short of arrest do not require probable cause. Such temporary detentions require only "reasonable suspicion." This includes car stops, pedestrian stops and detention of occupants while officers execute a search warrant. "Reasonable suspicion" means specific facts which would lead a reasonable person to believe criminal activity was at hand and further investigation was required.

Detentions can ripen into arrests, and the point where that happens is not always clear. Often, police state that they are arresting a person, place him/her in physical restraints, or take other action crossing the line into arrest. These police actions may trigger the constitutional requirement of probable cause.

Someone arrested or charged without probable cause may seek redress through a civil lawsuit for false arrest or malicious prosecution.

- See more at: Probable Cause - FindLaw

1) Spitting is NOT cause for a search. Are you suggesting people should be sent to JAIL for spitting? Or given a ticket? That is a very important distinction here.

2A)TRAFFIC STOPS are NOT probable cause. They are a detention and officers may ASK if you have been drinking and do a field sobriety check...but they may not search you UNTIL they have probable cause (like a failed test) to search you.

ALSO...a REQUEST to search your vehicle CAN be turned down. It is a request. Turning it down is NOT probable cause. If you CONSENT to a search...that VOIDS the necessity of probable cause and it can be admissable in court.

2B)The CANINE can be used to FIND probable cause.

3) A HINT of probable cause is NOT probable cause and it WILL be treated as such in court. If an officer acts on that...you can bet your ass that ANY decent Defense attorney will get that thrown out of court. Accepting a hint vs ACTUAL probable cause is likely to result in a MASSIVE lawsuit AGAINST the government.

You clearly have no concecpt of what "Probable cause" is. You don't understand what questioning is, and how the dog works either. I understand. I have spent a lot of time around K9 guys. Their dogs are freakin awesome. Maybe you need to learn your rights?

https://www.aclu.org/drug-law-refor...acial-justice/know-your-rights-what-do-if-you

 

[calamity]

Stereotype. Because one has faith...one does not understand science? I think the only person here with a lack of understanding is...you.

List of Christian thinkers in science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is JUST Christians. There are Muslim scientists, Jewish Scientists, and all other kinds as well. Try this on for size...I, a Presbyterian, believe in Evolution, the Big Bang (as far as it has been explained to me), and all other forms of Science. SCIENCE and RELIGION ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. You can have one AND the other. The thinking that one CANNOT be religious AND believe in science is equally as biggoted as those you seem to disapprove of. Which leads me to:



The political ideology of: .
-Calamity-

That is the political ideology of the militant non religon. That has happened and it HAS caused the deaths of plenty. And you know it. That leads me to the next point:



It is EXACTLY the reason why it was written...and the words of the man who wrote are VERY clear-


-James Madison-

If those are NOT the words of someone demanding FREEDOM for the common man...I don't know what is.

As for the other stuff:



Here is the definition:



1) Spitting is NOT cause for a search. Are you suggesting people should be sent to JAIL for spitting? Or given a ticket? That is a very important distinction here.

2A)TRAFFIC STOPS are NOT probable cause. They are a detention and officers may ASK if you have been drinking and do a field sobriety check...but they may not search you UNTIL they have probable cause (like a failed test) to search you.

ALSO...a REQUEST to search your vehicle CAN be turned down. It is a request. Turning it down is NOT probable cause. If you CONSENT to a search...that VOIDS the necessity of probable cause and it can be admissable in court.

2B)The CANINE can be used to FIND probable cause.

3) A HINT of probable cause is NOT probable cause and it WILL be treated as such in court. If an officer acts on that...you can bet your ass that ANY decent Defense attorney will get that thrown out of court. Accepting a hint vs ACTUAL probable cause is likely to result in a MASSIVE lawsuit AGAINST the government.

You clearly have no concecpt of what "Probable cause" is. You don't understand what questioning is, and how the dog works either. I understand. I have spent a lot of time around K9 guys. Their dogs are freakin awesome. Maybe you need to learn your rights?

https://www.aclu.org/drug-law-refor...acial-justice/know-your-rights-what-do-if-you

Obviously we disagree on religion. I see it as man's worst evil. You apparently do not.

Spitting--Yes cause for stop and ticketing. Gives cop excuse to ask for ID and several other questions, including request for searching bags and person.

Traffic Stop--They can ask to search at anytime. Yes, you can refuse. However, they can bring in dogs with or without probably cause, as long as the hold (detention if you will) is not unreasonable. Good luck proving you were held an unreasonable amount of time, btw.

Hint of probably cause is defined, reasonable suspicion--You bet it can be used against you. "I smelled marijuana." "The defendant's eyes were glassy." "He appeared nervous, so I searched his trunk and found 15 pounds of cocaine." Happens all the time, and the courts allow it.

lol...I've spent a lot of time getting arrested and fighting it out in court.

 

[Crimefree]

Gun control works great in crimefree countries like Sweden and Finland and Japan and Singapore....the list is long.

As it does in Columbia, South Africa, UK and an equally long list which proves nothing. I am shocked you even tried such a blatantly useless and fraudulent thing such as a cross country comparison. Actually no I'm not. It's one of gun controls myths.

Thanks for proving my point. Gun control is a myth and a complete lie.

 

[calamity]

As it does in Columbia, South Africa, UK and an equally long list which proves nothing. I am shocked you even tried such a blatantly useless and fraudulent thing such as a cross country comparison. Actually no I'm not. It's one of gun controls myths.

Thanks for proving my point. Gun control is a myth and a complete lie.

Lots of gun control in the US works well. Sawed off shotguns, machine guns, bazookas, nuclear weapons are all banned, for good reason. No one in their right mind wants them not to be.

BTW, you want proof that gun control works, look to Hawaii.

A perfect example of the effectiveness of gun laws is the state of Hawaii. That state has some of the country’s strictest gun laws and, as an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, it is perhaps the hardest state to transport out-of-state weapons to. Hawaii had the country’s lowest rate of gun deaths per 100,000 residents in 2011, FBI data show.

The data is clear; gun control works | Editorials | San Francisco | San Francisco Examiner

 

[blackjack50]

Obviously we disagree on religion. I see it as man's worst evil. You apparently do not.

I see politics as the most evil.

Btw I won't be correcting probable cause...I know what you meant...freakin autocorrect

Spitting--Yes cause for stop and ticketing. Gives cop excuse to ask for ID and several other questions, including request for searching bags and person.

Asking for id and asking questions is not a search. Does not give probable cause to search. A request to search can be denied.

Traffic Stop--They can ask to search at anytime. Yes, you can refuse. However, they can bring in dogs with or without probably cause, as long as the hold (detention if you will) is not unreasonable. Good luck proving you were held an unreasonable amount of time, btw.

Cell phone cameras are awesome. You get detained 3 hours for speeding ticket...you got 3 hours of footage. But...none of the above is a search. All are not violations of the 4th and the dog can be used to give probable cause. Hence why you can be arrested on an indication, but an empty search.

Hint of probably cause is defined, reasonable suspicion--You bet it can be used against you. "I smelled marijuana." "The defendant's eyes were glassy." "He appeared nervous, so I searched his trunk and found 15 pounds of cocaine." Happens all the time, and the courts allow it.

Those aren't hints. Those ARE probable cause. Except APPEARING nervous. I'm nervous any time I've dealt with cops. I don't like or trust them. Questioning a person can lead to probable caused based on answers...maybe.

lol...I've spent a lot of time getting arrested and fighting it out in court.

I've only been stopped a few times and thus that is all that matters. I'm also friends with most cops in my area because of my father's work. And friends with game wardens and such too. My roomate is a lawyer, and I want to be one as well. But...of all of that the most important one:

A false arrest for a firearms related crime. It was tossed out because it was laughable and the officer (notorious jerk who was later fired for something else...incompetence related).

Now...granted I was not going to be charged...I was a minor...but every other adult male in my family was going to be. Hence my constant insistence on knowing the current legislation. And why I'm reading on Alabama and Tennessee carry law right now. You can't trust cops to be smart, and they damn sure don't know the law. Anyway...rant off.

 

[TurtleDude]

Lots of gun control in the US works well. Sawed off shotguns, machine guns, bazookas, nuclear weapons are all banned, for good reason. No one in their right mind wants them not to be.

BTW, you want proof that gun control works, look to Hawaii.

again you are incorrect you can own most of those things in most states. They are called NFA weapons. Nuclear weapons are not arms within the meaning of the 2A BTW. bazookas are cos.

so you are wrong and many of us think that Short barreled shotguns and hand held machine guns should be treated like other firearms.


gun control does work. It was designed to harass law abiding-often poor people-from owning guns as freely as they want. That is what a paper from a loony tune city like SF is really saying. Hawaii also has registration which has been a complete failure according to all sorts of evidence. Hawaii never had much crime before gun laws either.

 

[BretJ]

I clearly stated the words "probable cause."
Thanks for playing.

Yet you would tout random stop and frisk policies as a success story. You can't have it both ways. You weasel out of one point made by hiding behind probable cause and not two posts away use stop and frisk as a glowing success story. If you were at least consistent, your opinions would have some credibility.

 

[BretJ]

Obviously we disagree on religion. I see it as man's worst evil. You apparently do not.

Spitting--Yes cause for stop and ticketing. Gives cop excuse to ask for ID and several other questions, including request for searching bags and person.

Traffic Stop--They can ask to search at anytime. Yes, you can refuse. However, they can bring in dogs with or without probably cause, as long as the hold (detention if you will) is not unreasonable. Good luck proving you were held an unreasonable amount of time, btw.

Hint of probably cause is defined, reasonable suspicion--You bet it can be used against you. "I smelled marijuana." "The defendant's eyes were glassy." "He appeared nervous, so I searched his trunk and found 15 pounds of cocaine." Happens all the time, and the courts allow it.

lol...I've spent a lot of time getting arrested and fighting it out in court.

Because we all know atheists and humanists have never murdered millions....many for not being atheists or humanists. :roll:

 

[calamity]

Yet you would tout random stop and frisk policies as a success story.

It was a success story. Were you ever in NYC back in the 80's? Believe me, it's nothing like today. Back then, not even I would have ridden on a subway without a .44 magnum. Today, I'd take my wife on it, both of us unarmed.

You can't have it both ways. You weasel out of one point made by hiding behind probable cause and not two posts away use stop and frisk as a glowing success story. If you were at least consistent, your opinions would have some credibility.

I believe in the court system. Cops break the rules, the prosecution gets a plea bargain, people like me walk because we can afford to hire expensive attorneys like Turtle and his former colleagues, screaming injustice or whatever to convince a jury or judge to cut us free. Is this a great country. Or what?

 

[calamity]

Because we all know atheists and humanists have never murdered millions....many for not being atheists or humanists. :roll:

Nonsense. People are killed in the name of something--not the absence thereof.

 

[TurtleDude]

It was a success story. Were you ever in NYC back in the 80's? Believe me, it's nothing like today. Back then, not even I would have ridden on a subway without a .44 magnum. Today, I'd take my wife on it, both of us unarmed.


I believe in the court system. Cops break the rules, the prosecution gets a plea bargain, people like me walk because we can afford to hire expensive attorneys like Turtle and his former colleagues, screaming injustice or whatever to convince a jury or judge to cut us free. Is this a great country. Or what?

my former colleagues are feds. I am retired:mrgreen:

I coach Olympic aspirants these days

 

[calamity]

again you are incorrect you can own most of those things in most states. They are called NFA weapons. Nuclear weapons are not arms within the meaning of the 2A BTW. bazookas are cos.

Only because the founding fathers had no idea that the atom could be spilt--if they even knew that atoms existed. Sort of like the bible-writer had no idea about kangaroos. It was knowledge over and above their pay-grade.

so you are wrong and many of us think that Short barreled shotguns and hand held machine guns should be treated like other firearms.


gun control does work. It was designed to harass law abiding-often poor people-from owning guns as freely as they want. That is what a paper from a loony tune city like SF is really saying. Hawaii also has registration which has been a complete failure according to all sorts of evidence. Hawaii never had much crime before gun laws either.

I'm rarely wrong. And, I am certainly not wrong in this case.

 

[TurtleDude]

Only because the founding fathers had no idea that the atom could be spilt--if they even knew that atoms existed. Sort of like the bible-writer had no idea about kangaroos. It was knowledge over and above their pay-grade.


I'm rarely wrong. And, I am certainly not wrong in this case.

you are wrong. stuff like machine guns are bazookas are conceivable to someone in the 1790s
high speed internet or even radio was not

yet the 1A covers radio and internet communications.
the 2A was not limited to the 18th century state of the art

btw what is more dangerous

an M16 in full auto or the same rifle in semi auto?

 

[calamity]

I see politics as the most evil.

Btw I won't be correcting probable cause...I know what you meant...freakin autocorrect



Asking for id and asking questions is not a search. Does not give probable cause to search. A request to search can be denied.



Cell phone cameras are awesome. You get detained 3 hours for speeding ticket...you got 3 hours of footage. But...none of the above is a search. All are not violations of the 4th and the dog can be used to give probable cause. Hence why you can be arrested on an indication, but an empty search.



Those aren't hints. Those ARE probable cause. Except APPEARING nervous. I'm nervous any time I've dealt with cops. I don't like or trust them. Questioning a person can lead to probable caused based on answers...maybe.



I've only been stopped a few times and thus that is all that matters. I'm also friends with most cops in my area because of my father's work. And friends with game wardens and such too. My roomate is a lawyer, and I want to be one as well. But...of all of that the most important one:

A false arrest for a firearms related crime. It was tossed out because it was laughable and the officer (notorious jerk who was later fired for something else...incompetence related).

Now...granted I was not going to be charged...I was a minor...but every other adult male in my family was going to be. Hence my constant insistence on knowing the current legislation. And why I'm reading on Alabama and Tennessee carry law right now. You can't trust cops to be smart, and they damn sure don't know the law. Anyway...rant off.

Rants are what we do.

Anyway, a week or two ago I read about a guy who acted "nervous" so the cops seached his truck, found a false bottom and came away with god-knows how many kilos of cocaine. IIRC, they noticed the truck was riding heavy, even though the bed was empty. So...maybe nervous is not enough.

Let me chck.
Probable Cause & Reasonable Suspicion - Case Law - Know My Rights

Yep, appears so.

Refusing a search does not create reasonable suspicion, although acting nervous and answering questions inconsistently can.

The key is probably in the combination "acting nervous and answering questions inconsistently."

BTW, even if you answer consistently, good luck proving it if the cop says you were evasive.

 

[calamity]

you are wrong. stuff like machine guns are bazookas are conceivable to someone in the 1790s
high speed internet or even radio was not

yet the 1A covers radio and internet communications.
the 2A was not limited to the 18th century state of the art

btw what is more dangerous

an M16 in full auto or the same rifle in semi auto?

THe most dangerous weapon is the man/woman behind the trigger.

 

[TurtleDude]

THe most dangerous weapon is the man/woman behind the trigger.

excellent point

 

[blackjack50]

again you are incorrect you can own most of those things in most states. They are called NFA weapons. Nuclear weapons are not arms within the meaning of the 2A BTW. bazookas are cos.

so you are wrong and many of us think that Short barreled shotguns and hand held machine guns should be treated like other firearms.


gun control does work. It was designed to harass law abiding-often poor people-from owning guns as freely as they want. That is what a paper from a loony tune city like SF is really saying. Hawaii also has registration which has been a complete failure according to all sorts of evidence. Hawaii never had much crime before gun laws either.

Hawaii has a small population and low profit crime...and is only accessible by a few expensive means. Not exactly a high profit area for gang bangers. Only a complete moron could not lock down the state in terms of criminals and weapons. Good luck on the mainland.

 

[TurtleDude]

Hawaii has a small population and low profit crime...and is only accessible by a few expensive means. Not exactly a high profit area for gang bangers. Only a complete moron could not lock down the state in terms of criminals and weapons. Good luck on the mainland.

its like comparing GB with the USA-how many miles of land border does the UK have with other nations versus ours?

 

[blackjack50]

THe most dangerous weapon is the man/woman behind the trigger.

Bingo. Anyone who thinks lack of access to firearms limits lethality is crazy. There are literally dozens of things that one can learn and apply to "guerrilla/terror" tactics. High school chemistry, electrical skills, fire fighters, propane guys, hardware guys, mechanics, and basically anyone with Internet access and a pension for DIY could make all manner of nasty deadly weapons far more lethal than a gun.

The only limit is the human mind...which we know is a terrible and dangerous thing when allowed to think.

 

[BretJ]

It was a success story. Were you ever in NYC back in the 80's? Believe me, it's nothing like today. Back then, not even I would have ridden on a subway without a .44 magnum. Today, I'd take my wife on it, both of us unarmed.


I believe in the court system. Cops break the rules, the prosecution gets a plea bargain, people like me walk because we can afford to hire expensive attorneys like Turtle and his former colleagues, screaming injustice or whatever to convince a jury or judge to cut us free. Is this a great country. Or what?

New York's "successful" stop and frisk policy was found to violate Constitutional rights. Again, consistency is key; Are you for or against probable cause as grounds for detaining/searching someone? You can not claim it is OK to violate a persons rights if the ends justify the means, such as was done with stop and frisk, with one side of your face, then hide behind "well I did say probable cause" with the other...

 

[blackjack50]

its like comparing GB with the USA-how many miles of land border does the UK have with other nations versus ours?

Bingo. Cultural differences, less people, less gangs, and less drugs...probably makes it a lot easier lol.

 

[TurtleDude]

Bingo. Cultural differences, less people, less gangs, and less drugs...probably makes it a lot easier lol.

what the gun banners fail to understand (or ignore out of dishonesty) was that England didn't have much of a gun-crime problem BEFORE it started passing silly laws-mostly in reaction to the slaughter of WWI and then WWII