What “Badges Don’t Grant Extra Rights” Really Means

“The surest sanctuary for freedom for a people
is not in constitutions or in bills of rights,
but rather in the mind of the people and
in their attitudes towards those
who encroach on their rights.”

– Carl Watner

Badges Don’t Grant Extra Rights

But what is a right?

A right implies the freedom to act without interference.

You have the right to act as you see fit so long as you don’t infringe on the equal rights of another. As the saying goes, your right to extend your fist stops at my nose.

A right implies ownership, or control of property. First and foremost, you have ownership of your person. You own yourself. Secondly, you own your rightfully-acquired property.

If you violate another person or their property you are initiating force, and they then, have the right to use defensive force to protect themselves or their property. The same is true no matter where on the globe you happened to be born, your gender, skin pigmentation, or any other arbitrary characteristic.

Rights can be violated, but not given or taken away.

What does it mean if someone wearing a badge demands your money when you’ve caused no victim? Or searches and seizes your vehicle, or kidnaps and cages your person, though you’ve done nothing that violates the rights of another? It means that they are acting as if they own you. They are exerting control over your person and property, which is a right that only belongs to the owner — you.

That’s why we say: Badges don’t grant extra rights. And it’s why your own mindset is the most important factor during any police interaction.

Consider:

Just after you walk across the street a stranger wearing baggy pants and a hoodie approaches and demands fifty dollars, or else. What you choose to do – verbally deescalate, walk away, or call them out – is up to you, but without question, that stranger does not have a right to your money. You have not harmed any person or property. That fact does not change one iota were that stranger to be wearing, not baggie pants and a hoodie, but a badge and police costume.

Claims of enforcing “the law” or any dictate scribbled on paper or found in a code book, does not exonerate the actor, whom alone is responsible for their actions.

When you understand this, you will clearly see through the charade that is today’s police state.

Filming the police is good. It creates an objective record and makes it more likely that the systemic pattern of unaccountability will be seen by others, and that aggressors will be held accountable – perhaps not through the injustice system, but through the court of public opinion. But filming isn’t enough. To eliminate the rights violations by police employees, live your life as though badges don’t grant extra rights. This is the lynchpin that will set you free.

“If the government directed you to do something that
your reason opposed, you were to defy the government.
If it told you to do what your reason told you to do anyway,
you do not need a government.”

– Epictetus

EPN

Pete Eyre

Pete Eyre is co-founder of CopBlock.org. As an advocate of peaceful, consensual interactions, he seeks to inject a message of complete liberty and self-government into the conversation of police accountability.

Eyre went to undergrad and grad school for law enforcement, then spent time in DC as an intern at the Cato Institute, a Koch Fellow at the Drug Policy Alliance, Directer of Campus Outreach at the Institute for Humane Studies, Crasher-in-Chief at Bureaucrash, and as a contractor for the Future of Freedom Foundation.

In 2009 he left the belly of the beast and hit the road with Motorhome Diaries and later co-founded Liberty On Tour. He spent time in New Hampshire home, and was involved with Free Keene, the Free State Project and The Daily Decrypt.

  • ymygody

    this nicely explains why those that violate your rights should be executed outright.

  • t

    The problem with this type of thinking is…..the only goofs that say “badges grant extra rights”….are goofy ass CBers.
    The police…not only do we not have “extra rights”….we surrender many of our rights.
    Our “right to free speech” is a good, easy example. Ours is virtually nonexistent. Not just when we are on duty….but off duty as well.

    You have yet again confused “rights” with “authority”
    See…..the pesky Constitution….you know, the one that CREATE our government and reserved rights from said government…..well, that same document grants authority to the government that it created.

    You guys always miss that part. It’s a long document….and all,you,guys wanna do,is cheat ahead to the end of it.

  • t

    dy:
    Does that mean the you should be immediately executed for double parking that blocks someone’s free passage? By your comment…you should agree with that.

  • ymygody

    don’t double park then. You would be surprised(well maybe not) how many people fall into that category for me.

  • JC

    Copblockers don’t decide what law they will and will not follow day by day. It’s very simple. You break the law, the PD are going to arrest or cite you. If you pull a weapon on them, they will pull their weapons on you. Copblockers don’t dictate what the law is. If you feel a law is unfair, then lobby to change it. Breaking it only shows the law is needed.

    Pete, (who takes a plea deal) you have small penis syndrome after you were kicked out of the academy.

  • Daniel Petersen

    “If you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to fear.” Goes both ways. If there weren’t incidents of concern there would be no cop block.

    Again you show utter contempt for the people and blindly support them being suppressed and oppressed by an overly aggressive police force because the people had it coming… If a law is unconstitutional we not only have a right to not comply but an obligation. You sir are not for the American people but the self serving road pirates who protect and serve their own paychecks.

    Why come you no have tattoo?

  • Yankeefan

    This is a good position. It is important to understand one fact. The constitution was ALSO created in a manner to limit the power and scope of government. When it does intrude on our privacy, there needs to be an overriding legal reason. They ( FF’s) loathed standing armies in peace time as they felt it would intrude on essential liberties. In all our discussions about the 2nd amendment you have always stated that the word “militia” is the most interesting word. To me it’s the phrase

  • Yankeefan

    P.S. What is your opinion on the Rodrigues v United States case? It is a serious 4th amendment case. A motorist was stopped for swerving and was issued a warning. After the fact, the officer asked for consent and was told no, to a search of the car. He ordered the driver out, after the fact it appears, and waited for a backup k-9 unit that conducted a sniff and it alerted. A bag of methamphetamine was found. I am curious as to your thoughts. This case was argued on 1-21-2015, If I recall correctly!

  • JC

    Copblock is here because a group of felons and criminals who don’t want to take responsibility for their actions get together and bitch about how unfair the system is. If you don’t like a law, then lobby to change it. Breaking it only re-enforces why the law was made in the first place. Of course 99.99% of copblockers and activists don’t vote but they are the first to complain.

    You say, “You sir are not for the American people but the self serving road pirates who protect and serve their own paychecks”. What you really are saying is since I don’t agree with a few copblock circus monkeys then I am not American. I assure you I am more of an American then you ever will be.

  • RAD

    “that same document grants authority to the government that it created.”

    Beyond blind faith, are there any facts that prove this is true? Should we accept this assertion on blind faith? Why/why not?

  • RAD

    The constitution “established”/”created” the government? So then who created the constitution?

  • t

    YF:
    My thoughts are I don’t know why this case has gotten that far.
    This is the type of case the should have been dismissed at whatever level they call their trial court.
    Now….SCOTUS can do whatever….but I d be SHOCKED if this holds up at alll. I’d consider this “settled law”. For while SCOTUS has never set a time on a traffic stop (or any other RS based stop)….this stop had pretty clearly concluded.

    But liked I’ve tried to make everyone understand…..generally the cases that make this far aren’t the good ones. Meaning…either the officer didn’t do what he should have, or a civilian really screwed up. Either way…..the cases that make it this far a generally at the extreme edges.

    Or it could be that SCOTUS wants to make a clearer ruling. And I’d guess that’s what’s going on here.
    But I’d guess that they won’t any “time limits” on stops. The reason is that the variables that can happen after a stop is made are nearly endless. My guess is that they will use this as a way to say that scope of the stop….is the scope of the stop. Without anything to broaden that scope…..it is only what the original stop is for.

  • t

    YF:
    Very true. Limited authority and power.
    But like I’ve gone into on this site many times….that doesn’t mean NO GOVERNMNET contact. After all…..the document was entirely about creating governmnet.

    As for technology.
    I completely agree. Big time game changer. I’ve said before….I think the use of cameras, and the posting of videos (of all kinds…not just police related) is something SCOTUS is going to have to address.

    About the use of Stingray. Been there. Incredible tech. Really works.
    I don’t really have an issue with an investigator not spelling everything out in a warrant. I always used code names or number for the CIs or informants I used. They would be exposed and suvject to questioning in court….but we protected that on the warrants themselves. There are some very good and legitimate reasons to do it that way..

    As for the public….
    I discussed if here and many times within my PD and with officer at other PDs. Just wait until all of the “body cam” stuff starts. Video of everyone I talk too….guilty or not….involved or not…all FIOA available for posting online. It’ll be a zoo. The lawsuits are gonna go crazy.

  • keepitreal

    No real American posts bestiality videos, you sick motherfucker. And then is too much of a bitch to admit to it. Even though everybody here knows you did it. Foul ass punk bitch.

  • keepitreal

    Shut the fuck up, lying sack of shit.

  • ymygody

    what’s that over there on the ground… Oh its just more “stupid”, it’s always falling out of JC’s mouth.

  • ymygody

    so you come to a site where people want to bitch about the laws? Why would you care with a bunch of criminals and felons want to discuss? TROLL.

  • t

    Why shouldn’t we?

  • JC

    You are the troll. I come to this site because i want too. If you don’t like what i write, don’t read it and certainly don’t respond to it. Since I work in probations, I do care what a bunch of criminals and felons want to discuss.

  • JC

    You need lots of help. You are so obsessed with bestiality videos. Are you aware they are illegal? So why do you continually obsess over them? Are you that sexually sick?

  • RAD

    I respect your right to believe in whatever religion or scriptures you want. Just wondering if your magic book has any facts to support it as “true” or actual facts to demonstrate that this “authority” of which you speak is actually real or just something you imagined. Do you blindly follow any piece of writing as “true” regardless of whether the facts support it as such?

  • RAD

    So let me see if I have your position correct:
    1. The constitution gives the government authority.
    2. You have zero facts or evidence to prove it or actual reasoning derived from facts to prove this. But we should still accept it.

    Is that accurate?

    But you have a bunch of people you call scotus who dress up in black priest robes and preach this stuff from their pulpit. Theses robed “wise men” preach that there is a “sovereign” higher power called “state”. Yet when you look into this there is no evidence this “sovereign” “state” even exists other than as an article of faith. Why should we believe in this religion, the constitution religion? You literally have no reason?

  • RAD

    lol I think he actually believes this stuff. Otherwise why would he be here preaching it non stop?

  • ymygody

    your a fucking troll. The only reason you’re on this site is to fucking troll people. you’re not a cop you don’t work in probation. In other comments you can’t even figure out if your probation officer or a parole officer. PO does not mean both of those jobs. The only reason you come here is to stir shit. I hope somebody catches you and skins you alive, and I hope they make a video of it so I can watch it.

  • JC

    Again, you are the one engaging me. I don’t actively seek you out and respond to your garbage. So, that makes you the troll. PO means either parole officer or probation officer. You are just too fucking stupid to figure it out. The rest of your rant is just threats. You are a coward and a dink. Grow up.

  • y

    RAD:
    What “facts” say that is doesn’t geNt authority?

  • ymygody

    I see you’re still too stupid to understand the definition of threat. Not surprising

  • keepitreal

    Like I said, a punk ass cowardly bitch who can’t even own up to shit he does.

  • keepitreal

    Here’s the funniest part – In speaking about court cases, he called the person bringing the case the “plaintive”. LOLOLOLOL. That’s freaking classic! He used to claim he was a PO in San Diego, until I shut that bullshit down by calling the County of San Diego. Now he claims he just lives in San Diego, and is a PO in another county. LOL. Anybody who lives out this way will know that’s a giant pile of horseshit. He’d be driving 3 hours each way. Plus now he refuses to name the county.

  • keepitreal

    You specifically said that a parole officer and a probation officer were the same thing. See, slaps, that’s what I meant when I said you’d be tripping over your own bullshit.

  • keepitreal

    Motherfucker claimed I support child molestation. Sick ass fucking punk bitch. Takes “keyboard warrior” to entirely new levels.

  • ymygody

    And I will continue to actively seek out your posts and ridicule them for their lack of reason and poor logic.

  • ymygody

    the guy has nothing compared to the intelligence of a pet rock.

  • ymygody

    there you go talking about your bestiality videos again. Just let the sheep go JC.

  • JC

    No, I understand it better than you.

  • JC

    Another twisted copblocker talking about farm animals. You are a sick person

  • JC

    That would be you alright.

  • ymygody

    we’re not talking about the big dictionary of JC

  • RaymondbyEllis

    So is “free speech” for the rest of us to the same degree if we want to keep our job. In States with fire-at-will

    And again you confuse “authority” with “powers”. Your authority comes from the powers granted to the government, federal or state, by the people. Your authority only extends to the limit of those powers. The federal Constitution, ratified with the Bill of Rights (which is very similar to the British “Bill of Rights” of 1689), sets those limits for the Federal, it took years before those limits applied to the States, or do you forget your history? What is today isn’t what was all those yesterdays. Missed Jim Crow did you? Missed states banning Joyce and Miller (hell, the Feds banned them too)?

    “You guys always miss that part. It’s a long document….and all,you,guys wanna do,is cheat ahead to the end of it.” And you seem to want to stop at the beginning, or somewhere in the middle as suits your purpose. It is a long document because, like SCOTUS giving itself the power to determine whether a law is Constitutional or not, before or after the Reconstruction Amendments, it’s all the Amendments and all the Court decisions. Going to the end of it is the beginning.

    “Separate but equal”, Jim Crow, was the end at one time, I have no doubt that you as an officer of the law would have enforced it with all due diligence in all 48 states (you should see the laws on miscegnation as part of Jim Crow).

    “Claims of enforcing “the law” or any dictate scribbled on paper or found in a code book, does not exonerate the actor, whom alone is responsible for their actions.” Ah, the Nuremberg offense, only ever to be applied at Nuremberg. When did Jim Crow end?

  • RaymondbyEllis

    YF, you do realize that t. isn’t taking the stance you did? This isn’t his paradigm: “Everything about the constitution was about protecting the people from government and its agents.” You can’t “balance rights” without breaking eggs when the government enforcers of law determine what is the balancing and what isn’t. For the people.

    As for this “he signed a non-disclosure agreement”, any cop knows its not binding if the act isn’t legal. Granted, what cops know to be legal isn’t the highest of standards. To take a more cynical, and irate, stance: the cop knew it broke every fucking ideal this country is based on but he didn’t care because it made his job easier and gave him a better performance review. In his defense, he likely doesn’t know the ideals this country was founded on and couldn’t care less.

    And I so very much like this: “But, the constitution established government but it also limited the power and authority of the government and that always needs to be discussed when discussing the constitution.” Even without the capitalization of a proper noun, and that I would argue the authority comes from the power so “power and authority” isn’t the right way to put it. Further nitpicking, as t. has pointed out ad nauseam, it isn’t just the Constitution, it’s all the other 50 too. Arizona has more expansive rights in it’s constitution than in the Constitution (another gee duh).

  • JC

    What is your problem? Do you always have to have the last word? Is that the only thing you have going for you in your life? You just jump in a troll me right away and the worst of it is you say absolutely nothing. Why do you waste my time and yours? Grow up.

  • MichaelP

    So by that logic, Rosa Parks should have just shut her mouth and sat her black ass in the back of the bus….after all…..it was the law….right???

  • MichaelP

    You make a very fine sheep…..

  • JC

    This isn’t about Rosa Parks. Copblockers seem to have a million and one excuses. They don’t vote because they don’t think it matters. They break the law instead of lobbying to change it. All are counter productive.

  • ymygody

    You know who’s BaaaaD

  • keepitreal

    LOLOLOLOLOL!!

  • t

    Ray:
    See….you can never take things as a whole.
    You….picking and choosing my comment….separating it out. That’s
    What YOU do with the law and the Constitution(s). It’s a total.

    Wow….you and Jom Crow. It’s like the CBers with the Nazis and gay sex. Wow guy.
    This is t then. The law evolves…as does society.
    I could say to you….there was no speed limit back in 305 BC. It’s just as germane as Jom Crow.

    As is a usual for you….you forget what this thread is about. It’s the constant nonsense about “Extra Rights”
    My point was spot on (as usual).
    You want to play word games (also as usual)

    But what’s really sad about your word games is….that’s all
    It is to you. Words. You don’t ever seem to show/demonstrate any real
    understanding of those words.

    I’ll say to you what I had to explain to @TennPigs back in the day.
    Read the “Preamble”. While it’s not part of the “law” of the Constitution….it lays what exactly what the rest of the document is about.
    As simple as it can be said….the Constitution is the document that created our form of government The “powers” it grants are limited to the Federal government…it reserves of “powers” for the states and then it reserves some specific and then some enumerated rights to the citizens.

    Now….ou an dress it up however you’d like….but the amendments were just that….added on, after the fact, to appease. How do we know this? Wellllll….if it hadn’t been that way….they would have been written into the body of the document (which they obviously weren’t)

    Now….as we’ve seen with your Jim
    Crow fixation…..law and society evolves. Keeping that in mind…..should te Constituoon and its original 240 year old amendments be seen the same way?

  • RAD

    I didn’t make the claim that it DOESN’t have authority because it is illogical to attempt to prove the non-existence of something imagined. For instance, Although I could disprove the non-existence(prove the existence of) of Spider-Man IF I could actually produce Spider Man, we can not prove the non-existence of Spider Man. But what we can show is that Spider-man is based on magical imagination rather than reasoned evidence. Try it: prove Spiderman doesn’t exist.

    For that matter, disprove the existence of Zeus or Poseidon. Can’t do it, can you? Likewise, I’m not going to prove that your imaginary concept doesn’t exist. All I can prove is that it is imaginary/supernatural and not based on actual evidence. What is the proof of this:
    t/statist dogma says it’s true.
    Has no evidence.
    Therefore, we can draw the reasonable inference that it is a faith based belief founded on blind faith in Dogma or magical thinking rather than a logical conclusion of reasoned evidence.

  • RAD

    What facts prove authority even exists in the first place, and that it’s
    not just some superstition lingering around from medieval times? Have you ever seen “authority”?
    What color was it? What is authority made of? Iron? You couldn’t see it
    directly? Is it like some force of the universe, like gravity? What
    empirical observations actually support such a theory? Or is it just a scripture-based religious article of faith?

  • RAD

    “Your authority comes from the powers granted to the government, federal or state, by the people.”

    What facts prove this conclusion? I know this is a popular dogma in the “civil religion”, and we are indoctrinated to believe this through repetition ad nauseum, but what facts do you actually rely on to arrive at such a conclusion?

  • RAD

    Specifically, what facts actually prove the assertion that the “people” “granted” “powers” to “The government”?

  • RAD

    Why do you keep referring to how we supposedly “should” see it when you have no reason to believe in it at all?
    The amendments are separate literary works just like the Gospel of John is a separate literary work from the book of Genesis. The constitution is compiled from several sources/authors. The claim that the constitution created the government is absurd because unlike the chicken-or egg conundrum, we actually have a historical record of which came first: the Government created the constitution, not the other way around. There were 8 avatars of the USA Leviathan before Washington acting as the “president” character. There was a previous constitution called the Articles of Confederation. The Federal government reorganized but it existed well before the modern version of the “Constitution”, the magical bible of your made up phony religion.

  • RAD
  • RAD
  • MichaelP

    But that’s what Rosa Parks and many other civil rights activists did, they broke immoral and unjust codes and statutes. Unless there is a victim associated with the alleged offense, it’s a commercial code or statute. Since we are a free people and not to be ruled by the laws of commerce, what you consider “breaking the law” is merely refusing to live under corporate rule.

  • ymygody

    fucking hilarious, last word? Take a look through the post and see who always has to have the last word you egomaniac. I will troll you until you stop posting on this site. I will not stop, ever. you fucked up when you fucked with me in the beginning. Get used to it.

  • JC

    You are the streetsheep copblocker

  • JC

    So you are saying I don’t get to exercise my 1st amendment rights unless it falls within your say so? Your ridiculous threats and childish tantrums only show what a shallow piece of shit you are. Keep up the good work.

  • JC

    Comparing Rosa Parks to what copblockers are today is simply ridiculous. I don’t care if you break the law. When you get busted for it, don’t come crying and pointing fingers at everyone else. There is always a victim with any offense. It’s either the state, city, county, or a victim. The victimless crime BS doesn’t exist.

  • ymygody

    you’re more than free to exercise your 1st Amendment rights. I see you still don’t understand the definition of threat, just making up definitions to words as you go again. moron.

  • JC

    Your threatening me to constantly stalk me on this website. You are a coward and a loser.

  • ymygody

    must be terrifying to live in your world scared of everything. Coward.

  • t

    Oh my

  • JC

    I’m not going to get into this BS with you. Grow up.

  • ymygody

    it’s really easy not to get into it with me. Just stop responding, sheep fucking troll.

  • MichaelP

    Are you bullshitting me with that nonsense?? The state, city or the county can NOT be a victim. If that were the case the only jurisdiction a case could be tried in would be federal, since the state can not preside over cases in which it is the victim. Please tell me you aren’t that dumb…..Actually….don’t tell me….since I really don’t give a shit what you think or have to say. You’ve already demonstrated an obscene amount of stupidity….I don’t need any further demonstrations…..

  • MichaelP

    Wow….did you stay up late to come up with that???

  • RaymondbyEllis

    “The law evolves…as does society.” Nice platitude. Does that imply for the good always?

    The Constitution also has this: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
    construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” So this is wrong: “then it reserves some specific and then some enumerated rights to the citizens”. It’s wrong because the specific are the enumerated, and because the 9th clearly shows there are more rights than in the Bill of Rights and does not list them or even describe them. You missed that “total” didn’t you? Let me give you one that is never mentioned but implied in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights: the right to self-defense. Neither, to use your failing, “specific” nor “enumerated”.

    Nice try on the Amendments, but the first ten were necessary to ratify the Constitution, it was ratified with them. Missed why we speak today of Federalists and Anti-Federalist? The Constitution wasn’t ratified without them. It would not have been ratified without them. It’s why we speak of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the same breath. There is no Constitution without the Bill of Rights. You do realize those first ten Amendments were originally called “Articles”? Your sophistry of they would been written into the Constitution is childlike, childish, or just ignorant, not sure which.

    Splitting comment at Jim Crow.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Replying to myself to further educate t. the always right,

    I like to use Jim Crow because it illustrates a number of seemingly disparate things which are, to use a phrase you so enjoy, easily woven to show how our nation fools itself in the totality of what is it’s history. Slavery isn’t the stain.

    1. After 1865, blacks enjoyed political and social power in the Southern states, enforced by Federal troops. In 1877 the Feds pulled out. Jim Crow began that very year, gaining momentum, and was codified in 1896 by a Southern leaning SCOTUS through “Separate but Equal”.
    2. That codification gave power to the KKK, to the point where they got a Presidential candidate nominated in the 1924 DNC, known affectionately as the Klanbake. Get the power of the KKK. BTW, that power stretched to California.
    3. The SCOTUS approval of Jim Crow supported anti-miscegenation laws throughout the US. Those laws were racial laws proscribing marriage between different “races” (Asian, polynesian, filipino, Native American, any color other than white marrying white). They were complex, where a polynesian was “white” in one state but not another. Even after Loving v. Virginia, the laws were enforced in some states into the early 1970s. Others started dropping those laws beginning around 1940. Jim Crow wasn’t just in the South.
    4. Jim Crow also solidified law enforcement having no moral compass, but only the compass f”it’s the law”. And there is the analogy to the Third Reich where Germans lost their moral compass. Law enforcement in the South had no moral compass, law enforcement elsewhere had confusion about where the needle pointed.
    5. In WWII, when the Europeans had ended slavery, had no apartheid, we were pure hypocrites going on about the land of the free and our democracy.
    6. I like bringing up Jim Crow because you, like all the authoritarians, want to hide from it and it’s consequences. We practiced apartheid for nearly 90 years, and not just on blacks. You think all it’s effects just go away in a generation or two? I was born when American apartheid was practiced. I was an adult before all the laws were repealed. Oh, wait, do you think once the laws are repealed the effects evaporate? Do you?

    Splitting again over this inanity: “Now….as we’ve seen with your Jim Crow fixation…..law and society evolves. Keeping that in mind…..should te Constituoon and its original 240 year old amendments be seen the same way?”

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Reposting the inanity “Now….as we’ve seen with your Jim
    Crow fixation…..law and society
    evolves. Keeping that in mind…..should te Constituoon and its
    original 240 year old amendments be seen the same way?” Well, no, because we have the Reconstruction Amendments. Prior to that your local, civilian profession could say no fault found and it was settled, after about 1924 (when incorporation became a doctrine about “due process”) the Feds could say bullshit. After 1965, they really said bullshit.

    But, not knowing what you mean by “evolves” in terms of good and bad, those rights in those first 10 amendments should be interpreted as liberally as possible to maintain the spirit of those amendments, and not illiberally to expand government power against that spirit. You, being the lover of the Constitution and all the philosophy that underpins, should embrace that. But then that would make your job harder…

    In this technological age, these words do have new meaning “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
    and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
    violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
    supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
    to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” It means things stored digitally are the new papers and effects. SCOTUS is so slow, but then most of them rented their phones.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    History.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Just to add more, your whole is just a hole that you bury yourself in. Really, own up to your words. Don’t be a pussy cop.

    Definition of a pussy cop: I speak in the passive; you can’t quote me by any one sentence because all my words, even if a write to police brutality and the weather on the south coast of France, must be taken as a whole; I never write anything that can be separated from anything else I write (France) because it’s a totality; and I’m special because I use rules no one else recognizes for any else but should for me because I’m a cop.

    Another way of looking at this, don’t write things that can be quoted in context that then refutes your context. Nah, that would lessen your authority (that’s a double entendre if you understand the word “authority”).

  • RaymondbyEllis

    The Bill of Rights is separate from the Constitution like the Gospel of John is separate from Genesis if and only if Genesis and the Gospel of John were contemporaneous, and argued as necessary to each other to be “ratified” like the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

    You gave 8 avatars but only mentioned the Articles of Confederation, what are the other seven? Does that count start at the Mayflower compact? Was the flag on the Mayflower fringed?

    Ohh, the Leviathan! Is that the Leviathan of the Jews (and antecedents), the Christians, Hobbe’s or Hume’s, or Arthur C. Clarke? Wasn’t that scene in the “Behemoth from 20,000 Fathoms” where the leviathan destroyed the lighthouse because it could no longer suffer the sound of it’s dead just so sad?

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Lions and tigers and bears, oh my.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Ah, you just gave into “the facts” argument. He has no facts or he’d present them first and ask for yours later. Now, there is the problem of what he calls “facts”. Facts are hard, dry things by who, what, where, and when, with just maybe, just maybe, how.

    It’s a fact that the USA dropped atom bombs on Japan, we have the who, what, where and when. We even have the how, the Manhattan project and by two B-29s, Enola Gay and Bock’s Car. The why is still disputed for both bombings. You can think of when in other events the how can be disputed.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    No facts can prove authority exists other than the facts created when authority exerts itself. Those facts prove authority exists.

    You used the word Leviathan, which is a word used as religious metaphor, or as a philosophical argument, or in a short story about a creature tortured by the sound of a lighthouse. It, Leviathan, is not a fact, yet you use it to make your point as if it were. Prove your facts first, quit using the rhetoric of your questions to make the rest of us prove what you won’t. If you have a “fact” that authority doesn’t exist, give it, but it must be a fact, not an argument.

    As for the color of authority? Yes, I have seen it, it’s blue or brown. Or in dress whites. And like gravity, it hurts when you oppose it. And that’s empirical.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    However, Spiderman can’t put me in prison. Even the empiricists argued that authority exists, they just argued about the moral basis to justify it’s existence. And then we have you.

    I think of this along the arguments of the Idealists, where reality is unknowable so it doesn’t exist, and the Materialists, who maintain reality exists however much we are unable to know reality. The former can’t quite grasp the meaning of a bullet to the head because it’s unknowable, the other knows fully what it means even if they can’t know it fully.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    They have used the term “brief” for a Terry stop based on finding nothing from a frisk and where the detainee has identified their self. And I do remember 15 to 20 minutes as a reasonable meaning for “brief”. Brief not being 72 hours because you can’t verify their identity.

    If a frisk does find something, within it’s bounds, then it moves from a Terry stop to something more, and allowing more time. A traffic stop has a reasonable time limit too. You can’t stop someone for violating a speed limit then hold them for hours over just that. You need to make the distinction, rather than lump it all together as if all the same by all those infinite variables that begin evaporating in infinite vapor from the start of the stop.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Just a drive by shooting.

    There is no “ALSO”. The Constitution was written specifically to limit the scope and power, and the derived authority, of the Federal government in order to establish a Federal government. They came from the failure of the Articles of Confederation, the first established government of those United States, but weren’t about to go to the opposite extreme of a too powerful Federal government.

    The Bill of Rights was a necessary part because one faction of the Federalists, the Anti-Federalists, saw what the other couldn’t, that the Constitution was insufficient in limiting the scope and power of the Federal government. Again, limiting the scope and power of the Federal government.

    I have my qualms about the Reconstruction Amendments, but without them local, civilian police would operate with even more impunity than they do now. No state politician could be or would be elected on a platform of “I’m going to be tough on crime and police abuses of the law”. That pesky “due process” clause let’s the locals get elected while leaving police abuses to the Feds.

    Discussing that the Federal government was established specifically to limit government is like cursive, the Elders seldom use it and the Youngers aren’t sure what it is.

  • t

    Ray:
    That sir was a lot of writing.
    That basically said nothing.

    I really got stumped by your failure to grasp that the law evolves, as does society. Most of your rant was about that exact thing. Look at you Jim Crow fixation. The law evolved as society did. You explained it a great length….but didn’t grasp a damn bit of it.

    As for the amendments.
    Dude…..I don’t even know how you feed yourself being that dumb.
    They are called “amendments” for crying out loud They weren’t in anyway part of the original document.
    That’s where your REALLY REALLY STUPID bible comparison fails and falls. They were both part of the original document. If you were to add the Book of Jefferson….that would be an “amendment” to the original document

    Now yes…..we all know that they were added prior to radification….so that ratification would happen. But there’s no way to get around the fact that they were ADDED. They “amended” the original document ….because it had been written with those founding fathers ignoring the idea completely.

    Cont

  • t

    Ray: (cont)
    Now….no where did I say or imply that it’s a bad thing to have those rightd spelled out like they are. I just want you and the rest of the goofs to get it that the docimne t created government. And NONE of those amendments irradiated that governmnent. Nor did any of them outlaw government contact.

    Heck….one of three reasons the Constitution is seen as such a significant leap is that it contains….within itself…with ways to modify it. It lays out the ways that leaders can be changed. It’s all right there

    The problem that you and the CBers face is an overwhelming unpopularity image.
    Look at the Free State Project. Thousands of douchebag stoner CBer types move in….and they can’t effect any change
    Why? Could be that anarchy fails everytime. Could be that everyone else hates them and unites against them. Could be that te bowl got to good and they forgot to vote. I do t know. I just know that it’s a failure.

    I have search warrant to go help with….so I’ll take my leave.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    You were only stumped because you can’t comprehend. Reconstruction Amendments, guy, bring them up a lot and that was a big evolution for this Republic, they in fact changed the relationship of the states and the Federal government. Another evolution was after the crash of 29: prior to the Feds insuring banks, all bank robberies were local unless the robbers crossed state lines. In fact, the FBI only had jurisdiction on federal lands. Once FDIC became law…

    My point was that “evolve” is not a statement of good, or bad, but only change. You seem to want it to mean good, but it means nothing of the sort.

    “They are called “amendments” for crying out loud”, and yet they were also called articles before they were called amendments. Read the fucking history. The Bill of Rights and the body of the Constitution are concurrent. The two make a compromise between two factions of Federalists, the one that believed the Constitution as written was sufficient, and the other that believed it wasn’t (maybe because they knew the need by way of the British Bill of Rights c. 1689, which was an act of Parliament and as easily withdrawn as passed). We had a Constitution and a Bill of Rights concurrently, the latter could have been articles in the body but the framers chose to call them Amendments. Those amendments did not go through the same process as the eleventh through the twenty-seventh.

    And now a word from t.’s sponsor: the Spanish Inquisition serves the public….

  • RaymondbyEllis

    Again, read the fucking history. Forget your sponsor, they were poor on American History…

    Where you get really stupid is thinking the Constitution would have gone out for ratification without an agreement on the Bill of Rights. Where you get even stupider is your
    argument that they amended the original document and therefore the Bill of Rights has the same standing as all the other amendments.

    “.because it had been written with those founding fathers ignoring the idea completely.” Well, gee the Constitution was written first but couldn’t leave the Constitutional Convention for ratification until those Founding Fathers that ignored the idea completely (they thought Congress could determine constitutionality, whooo hoo) compromised with the other Founding Fathers that didn’t ignore it at all. No Bill of Rights, no Constitution, but a much longer Constitutional Convention. BTW, until the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified, it was still that other United States created by the Articles of Confederation.

    “Now yes…..we all know that they were added prior to radification….so that ratification would happen. But there’s no way to get around the fact that they were ADDED. They “amended” the original document ….because it had been written with those founding fathers ignoring the idea completely.” Yeah and I can write a contract all by myself, but it doesn’t become one until the other party signs off, and they’re not likely to if it’s all about me. The Constitution was words on paper until it was ratified, it was not a Constitution until then, and it was only sent out for ratification after
    an agreement on the Bill of Rights.

    It was ratified in 1788, but not all states joined until 1791, thus the real year of the start of the second United States.The Bill of Rights was sent out in 1787, but it wasn’t ratified until 1791. 1791, what a concept.

  • t

    Ray:
    Stop trying to think….you really don’t have any skills at it.

    WHAT did I say on the matter? Did I say endless? Nope. I said….and correctly so…that the variables are endless. Meaning….I can find all kinds of things from an innocuous stop. Things that can L E N G T H E N the duration of the stop. The investigation needs to be moving forward. It’s like I’ve tried to explain to you goofs many times…..the stop can lead to RS of other things. And that investigation can occur. And so on and so on.

    And that’s why SCOTUS doesn’t put time limits on things. It could be something as simple as being out of paper. Or DCI could be slow. Or the laptop needed to be rebooted in the middle of the stop. That stuff happens all the time.
    It’s why every case is looked at individually. What may be excessive in one instance….may very well not be in a different case.

    See guy…if you slow your roll….you’d see that everything I’ve said on the matter has been spot on…and even well explained….theoughout. I know you don’t like that….because you thinks it lessens the idea that you are the smartest guy in the room. Here’s a hint….it’s easy to see that you aren’t the smartest guy In The room unless you’re alone.

  • RaymondbyEllis

    “WHAT did I say on the matter? Did I say endless? Nope. I said….and correctly so…that the variables are endless.” And a distinction without a difference when you follow with “Meaning….I can find all kinds of things from an innocuous stop. Things that can L E N G T H E N the duration of the stop.” You don’t get how “I can find” has more than one meaning.

    Of course a stop, any stop traffic or otherwise, can be “the stop can lead to RS of other things….”, RAS is the least and just above a hunch. It isn’t that a crime has been committed, it’s that you have a suspicion. Your RAS can evaporate as that needed investigation based on that RAS goes on. The question is how long, SCOTUS has said “brief”.

    I notice you think how long should be based on your failures by the excuse of DCI (please never use jargon, jargon is specific to a profession, if you can’t explain it without the jargon, read what Feynman said about explaining physics), the laptop needs rebooting, etc. Just bureaucratic bullshit.

    Finally, “Stop trying to think….you really don’t have any skills at it.” I haven’t seen any example from you where either your Psychology degree or your Criminology degree taught you how to think, nor to even parrot well. In fact, the only part of analyze you do well is what anal means, and I’m not talking about Psychology.

    Oh, here’s a good link about how you’re always right: http://www.hendonpub.com/law_and_order/articles/2015/01/no_officer_safety_exception_to_the_constitution. I await the how you’ll twist logic, and your own arguments, to arrive at you still are.

  • Pingback: At Feb. 22nd Vigil for Tamir Rice, Cops Show Up En Masse (Video) | Cop Block()

  • Pingback: Franklin Graham Shares the Worst Police Advice|CopBlock.org()

  • Pingback: Vegas School Cop in DUI Car Accident - Pulls Gun on Victims()

  • Pingback: Open Letter To The Chief Of Police In Bethlehem PA ()

  • Pingback: Florida Cop Tells His Mommy on Seat Belt Scofflaw Who Criticized Him on CopBlock | Cop Block()

  • Pingback: How the System Made Me Plead Guilty | Cop Block()

  • Pingback: CBR Ep. 104: "Meet The New Copblockers" | Cop Block()