Why you should never talk to police: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
They will lie or provoke you into doing something, even worse, one of the cops I know had a story about how someone said, "no, you cannot search my vehicle." The cop then asked if he wanted to be arrested for resisting arrest, and the guy gave in because he has no idea what his rights really are. The cop who was telling me seemed pretty smug about it, tricking someone into searching his car...
The point being, it's very hard not to get yourself into a pickle of the police officer really wants you. Most officers have somewhere between 2 - 4 years of formal education, most of which is about how to trick people, not about law. If the police officer suspects you're at fault for anything (or even is just having a bad day and doesn't like your look) he will arrest you.
That being said, always say, "I'm not refusing, but you may not search my car (or persons)" and don't go with them unless you are arrested. Both require them to get a warrant, something they wont do unless they need to. If your pulled over and asked why, always say "no." (fifth amendment right and all).
Finally, always, always, always be super nice and professional. Act innocent and you wont make the officer angry.
How is this different from some third world country where police stop cars to collect bribes from drivers?
Well I'll tell you. In America the whole administration, the judiciary, the legal profession, the government at federal,state and county level are in on it. It seems that it succeeds basically because it is too expensive to get justice through the courts, this means that the courts and legal profession are in on it too. In third world countries is just the police and their superiors who get the money, and it generally petty cash.
It looks like it is not terrorists who are going to destroy America after all. Your corrupt governments, banks, judiciary and law enforcement will do it on their own.
A justice system which only the rich can afford is not a justice system in principle or in practice.
The funny thing is that it has been going on for decades and it looks like the Washingon Post just noticed, as though they didn't know about it ages ago.
We still have enough liberty here that this article can run in the newspaper freely. That is evidence enough America is far from stinky. Do we have unfair levers of power here? Yes. Are we attempting to determine how the levers got into a few people's control? Yes. Will we figure out how to stop them and keep it from happening again? You bet we will.
And none of that will come to pass because of your crappy comments. It'll happen because we are Americans and aren't going to allow our liberties to being eroded by a bunch of fear mongering asshats. And THAT, my friends, is a blaming statement.
The observation was made that the real damage to the US would come from within and not without. This seems trivially easy to "prove" if you keep up with the news and history.
The observation was made that broad swathes of government and private practice were in league to perpetuate these issues. Such behavior is expected because of the mechanism of action at work: the rot and the power is in the legislative and judicial systems, so of course those folks will be acting in concert.
The observation was made that in other "corrupt" countries officers routinely relieve travelers of excess pecuniary baggage, which appears to also be the case in some parts of the US.
These are not ad hominem propositions, nor were they presented as such.
This is a false statement. "Your country is beginning to stink." is a blaming statement that attempts to lay out pre-support of the opinion "In many respects it is worse than third world countries". However, in the subsequent context in which it is used the statement is presented as a logical conclusion or fact. It is then followed up with another blaming statement meant to seal the 'logic' of the opinion, "It looks like it is not terrorists who are going to destroy America after all. Your corrupt governments, banks, judiciary and law enforcement will do it on their own."
There is no proof that America will be destroyed by corruption inside government, banks or the judicial system. There are observations that we are threatened by some individual's actions, but there are also observations we are doing something about it. The claims we will be 'destroyed' because we are 'corrupt as a third world country' are simply false. There is no evidence this will occur and it is pure conjecture.
While I agree with you it probably started as an opinion the comment, in general, their comments consititued an irrelevant conclusion. Irrelevant because it was full of blaming opinion from someone outside those being blamed, and conclusion because it was presented as fact. As it turns out, irrelevant conclusions fall into a broad of set of relevance fallacies, which themselves are 'ad hominem' arguments. Look it up.
There's something wrong when police have been funding themselves with $30 billion in essentially stolen money.
I can't count how many times I've heard this comment along the lines of "hurr durr this is Murica and no one is taking muh freedom away". No, your freedoms are already gone and it looks like you haven't woken up to it yet.
You really don't need to use language like this. This isn't Reddit.
In America these institutions exist, but the legislatures have turned them into revenue collecting bodies for the federal,state, local governments and the law enforcement bodies.
It is like law enforcement and the legal system have turned into feeding troughs for the whole band of officials involved in it.
If you are not rich enough to give your lawyer a fair share of what they steal from you, you are not getting it back. If you are rich enough they don't bother stealing from you because they know you have the power to get it back.
This sucks. Apparently police and prison officers unions and PACS or whatever their called fund political campaigns which result in preserved or even bigger budgets for law enforcement, then turn around and use the increased income to fund the politicians next time around, to keep the cycle going (except Detroit), which results in more borrowing by the government from which the banks also get their share, pauperising future generations even more.
It is an interesting country.
I don't think you get mine about speaking for others and making blaming statements. You can't say what I get or what I don't get, nor can you form blaming opinions and then try to speak them as fact. This behavior itself is where problems start, not where they are ended. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand and everything to do with solid lines of communication between those that agree to disagree.
I hear you when you say we have problems. We do. Like other countries, we have certain traits that make up who we are as a culture. Part of our culture, at least historically, is firmly objecting to too much government control. Given the recent reaction to the NSA's overreach, I'd say we are moving forward on the issue. Unfortunately for the impatient, this can be painful. We're also know for dragging our feet and whining about change while it is occurring. We're not perfect, but we're trying.
I also don't blame people for the terrible places in which they live either. I don't blame anyone for any repressive regime in which they might live. It's not fair and it's unproductive. I feel my decision to not blame people for any repressive regime they might live under is important to reforming those regimes, and ultimately having sympathy for those regimes' targets.
Once in a while, things do happen in the U.S. to piss off the assholes:
* abolished slavery
* gave women the right to vote
* changed tax structure to try to encourage more of a meritocracy (alas, largely rolled back)
* overturned prohibition (again, losing ground due to war on drugs leading to Al Capone 2.0)
(maybe only once every two generations or so, but there you go)
Alas, there's a list of screwups that could parallel the above list, but we're trying...
EDIT: Don't you think you should at least call him out on such unacceptable behaviour?
I would love to see a law on the books that forbids law enforcement officers from lying to witnesses or the accused to extract evidence or confessions. After all, it's unlawful to lie to them; the playing field should be level on both ends.
I can't imagine why you'd want to preface a refusal by stating "I'm not refusing." That just seems willfully obtuse.
The "I don't consent to searches" line seems a lot more appropriate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kVX6NIPzB0
Absolutely you shouldn't be leaving the money out in the open, and should probably hide it. You should absolutely NEVER give consent to search your car. You have no idea what a person is capable of until it's too late. I'm not saying the cop will plant something, though it wouldn't be the first time, but you also have NO IDEA what might be in your car accidentally.
As for having dangerous mystery items in your car, if you don't regularly hang out with low lifes that seems ridiculously improbable. Drugs and weapons are not going to sneak into your vehicle or luggage. To have "no idea" what's in your car it would have to be cluttered with junk and you'd have to parade people through it on a regular basis, so uh, don't do that.
"Fuck you" is not an appropriate response, but videotaping responses to respectful questions is: "Am I free to go?" "Am I being detained?" "On what grounds am I being detained?" "Can you please tell me the relevant statutes so I can look them up?"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1...