Just Say No . . . to Cops

Ah, but “government” (nor a “society”) is not an entity in itself. It has no face or form, no agenda or method, no strength or intelligence of its own – but only that of the individuals who make up the whole. It is a system, a framework, a tinkertoy set manipulated by all the players, but each player has his/her own motive, interest, method, strength, agenda, etc.

When the common denominator of those individuals is the desire -or even the assumed “god given” mandate – to control the lives of other people, then evil tyranny is the inevitable result. When the common goal is to exercise ownership of others and their property, to live at the expense of the herd, the “cattle” are not going to be _given_ any true voice in the outcome.

Those who want to be self owners, with no desire to control or rob others… are a minority, and probably always will be.

Can we change the hearts and minds of those who would control us? Or must we always and ever defend ourselves from them? I wish I knew.

Now if we can just get about 100 million more Amerikans on board…

Given the amazing advances in medicine we’re seeing today, brain transplants just might be possible in our lifetime. Let’s hope so, because that’s the ONLY way we’re gonna turn 100 million Amoricons into anarcho-capitalists. Looking and listening to what’s going on around me, I’m convinced that there’s no other solution.

Seriously? Like who does that? Really? Hey good job man for forcing me out of my house at gunpoint, and thanks for rummaging through my stuff. And has anyone seen this…”people wanna help that guy but a new boat?” Why would anyone but the cops help him buy a new boat? They’re the ones who fucking ruined it!!!

Dang it BB…When I read your post the theme from the old Roger Ramjet cartoon show popped into my head.

AND IT WON’T GO AWAY!

Gawd, I’m old…

Or you could look at yourself as an Indian when pioneers just moved into Their country, with all of their arbitrary laws, thefts, taxes, disease, and contradictions.

“Live free, because mortal life is temporary.”

Excellent, Ernie. That was the American philosophy in the not too distant past. It’s as valid today as it was in the late 18th century when some of George III’s uppity subjects decided not to be subject any longer to his rule.

Well put and I do the same. Clovers and the cops would say, “if you didn’t do anything wrong you have nothing to worry about.” I say fuck that. Experience has taught me otherwise.

I agree that laws are out of control – but I do not agree that cops aren’t a problem. I refuse to absolve people who choose to enforce obnoxious, bullshit – and yes, evil – laws of responsibility for so doing. They are not helpless pawns – or people who have guns pointed at them so that they will point guns at others (e.g., concentration camp guards). They are not under duress; they have a free choice – and they freely chose to put on the uniform and gun and become enforcers of the law. Any law. Because the law is the law.

Some may be “decent” people in the sense that they aren’t sadists and they may try to do the right thing, as they see it. But they are all morally-ethically compromised (or oblivious) and neither is laudatory.

Consider: What sort of guy elects to spend his days hassling grown adults over their decision to wear (or not wear) a seatbelt? Who mans a radar trap – knowing (they have to know) that’s it’s bullshit – revenue collection, nothing more? Who arrests and cages people over non-crimes such as “possessing” or “using” (or selling) an arbitrarily illegal “drug”?

So, yes, cops are a big part of the problem. So are the low-lifes who choose to become TSA “agents.”

They are deserving of the contempt of right-thinking people.

“Cops are not THE problem, the problem is this society that has allowed laws to profligate and law enforcement to grow out of control. ”

I have to disagree with you, Jim. For as long as I’ve been alive (and I’m old) there hasn’t been anything that society could do about the passage of laws. By society, I mean, common, ordinary people. What could any of us do that would have any effect? We can contact our congresstwits, and be ignored. We can petition and protest and be ignored or jailed.

The only thing we could have done that would have stopped the advance of the current police state is to resort to violence against the politicians. I’m glad that we didn’t do that, but what else could have had any effect? The saying about the different boxes that we can resort to in order to preserve our liberty, “the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box’ isn’t actually available to us anymore.

Elections are transparently fraudulent and controlled, juries are browbeaten by judges, who will make a directed verdict when a petit jury shows the least sign of independence. The cartridge box is all that’s left, and resorting to that last option is a terrible thing to contemplate for people with children.

The way I see it, this shit has been done TO us, not BY us. To say that it’s our own fault is the same as accepting the politicians’ lie that “we are the government”. From that viewpoint, I regard the police as a huge part of the problem. Of course, they aren’t THE problem, on that we agree.

Suppose that there was a society of very nice people who, one day, decided to give their teenage sons and daughters a bottle whiskey and the keys to the family’s hottest car. In this society, the teens got a little out of control right away, but the parents kept on allowing it. As time went by, the teens got worse and worse, until they started killing people at random out of rage and perverse enjoyment.

Who is to blame? Your point would analogize to the parents being at fault. And yes, “we”, society at large, should never have allowed police to go crazy with rage and perverse enjoyment.

On the other hand, teens, and cops, are responsible for their behavior, and when they go on rampages, cannot be absolved by them whining, “It’s your fault; you didn’t discipline me enough!”

Unfortunately, more and more there simply are no “jury trials.” Governments at every level are writing “laws” to eliminate the possibility of jury trials wherever possible. And a lot is possible.

And, in most places, the people who fill what few juries are ever seated do not even begin to understand the concept of a crime needing a “victim.” Most are staunch advocates for the “war on drugs,” etc. Anything they believe is a threat to them must, of course, to be eliminated by the benevolent “justice system” so they’ll be safe and free of any responsibility… ad nausea.

I completely support the fully informed jury. Unfortunately, we first must have an educated and self governing population to make it work.

Also, be aware that people are being charged with “Obstruction of Justice” should they nullify and it gets out.
And the “secret” deliberations of the jury were used to convict, IIRC.

Anyone ELSE realizing the time for peaceful means is past?

Astonishing as it may seem… I simply can’t remember just why everyone (in airport authority positions) is so completely and everlastingly terrified of bottled water!

I’m an old lady, of the Scottish persuasion, and deaf to boot… and the last time I flew (I do mean, the LAST), I did forget the water I always carry. The ensuing insanity might even have been funny if the potential results hadn’t been so deadly…

Then, with a straight face, the goon who “found” it asked me if I wished to “give it to him.” I simply nodded. Telling him what I really thought would have been counterproductive in the extreme, and I’d have missed my flight home. Home, where I intend to stay.

Jason asked, “what rights do Canadians (or other non-US citizens have) assuming they are in the US legally?”

I’d say, less than we have.
You’re still subject to the same, “Papers Please” too.

Here’s a hint, things are all fucked up here:

The warring classes seem to believe they have come upon some great principle in declaring that Fifth Amendment rights to due process apply only to American citizens, and not to “foreigners,” particularly “terrorists.” That amendment reads “No person . . .,” extending its coverage to anyone being dealt with by the United States government. It does make an exception to cases arising “in time of War,” which gives these flag-waving grenadiers an excuse to proclaim that due process does not apply to “enemy combatants” under some amorphous war-powers authority. The principal problem with this argument is that no “war” has been declared by Congress (as required by the Constitution). How can some make-believe rules of “war” apply in the absence of a formally-declared “war?”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/136205.html

No tongue lashing from me, Jason. I’m a bit chagrined at myself that I didn’t give much thought to the issue. I wish I assure you that all people who are visiting/immigrating here legally would be welcomed but the truth is I just don’t know.

But given recent events it might be better to stay up north and enjoy that fine Canadian beer for a while longer.

b

“So, do Canadians traveling in the US have the right to refuse to give their name, etc?”

The way I see it, everybody has the same rights here whether they are citizens of the US or visitors from anywhere else. Rights are inherent in our status as living human beings. Now, a visitor to the US from Canada isn’t entitled to certain privileges of citizenship, such as the privilege of voting in elections.

You have the same right to give a cop the silent treatment as I do. You have the right to defend yourself and your family while you’re here as I have. That’s not meant to imply that your rights, like mine, may be denied us by agents of the US government.

That’s my take on it.

Quite frankly, my advice to all foreigners contemplating a visit to the U.S. is: don’t do it. There is NO reason anyone visiting here for peaceful purposes should 1) have to beg permission to do so by enduring a needlessly and deliberately painful and demeaning bureaucratic interrogation at the hands of the criminal incompetents of the U.S. State Department at any Consulate, or 2) be harassed and interrogated by blue-clad paedophile thieves at the international entrance points to this country on the road or at the airports.

In short, let this country straighten itself the fuck out and return to normality and sanity before it interacts with the rest of the world. Until such time, it doesn’t deserve a minute of any non-citizen’s attention or a penny of their money.

I can answer the question “what about Canadians” traveling in the US? The answer is that, in this case, you do NOT have the same rights as an American citizen. This is one of the few instances where non-citizens and citizens have very different rights on American soil.

Any foreign citizen who is legally in the US is required by law to carry their proof of legal status at all times and to show such proof to any law enforcement or border patrol that asks. Even if you are a Permanent Resident, you are required to carry your green card on you at all times and to show it to any authority who asks. Any American citizen can simply refuse to talk to authorities. A Canadian cannot.

There is one notable exception to this. If you are in the country ILLEGALLY, then you are not required to show any papers to authority or to speak to anyone. The theory is that you are not required to self-incriminate. It seems somewhat odd that a legal immigrant (or legal visitor) has less rights than an illegal alien but that is our current world.

Chris, I like that, thanks!

Now Chris, that is got-damned brilliant (no sarcasm meant). I love it!

I’ve also heard that’s the best response to “Do you know how fast you were going.”

I’ve told cops ‘no’ a few times. They then ask for my name etc.

Good point, Chris. There was a movie made in the 50’s called “Lonely Are The Brave”. One exchange between a cop and the central figure, a modern day cowboy was memorable.

Cop: Do you have any identification?

Cowboy: Don’t need any. I know who I am.

I would simply ask WHY the officer feels the need to ASK. Ordinarily, this isn’t “your papers, please”…unless you’re driving, in which case the officer, if (s)he stops you, can lawfully demand to see your operator’s permit, you don’t have to to produce ANYTHING for the officer(s), and especially not some government-issued form of identification. All you’re required to do, if ‘asked’ (technically, it IS a lawful order), is truthfully state your name, date of birth, and current address, and even that only if the officer has reasonable suspicion that you are or have recently been involved in a crime. As a practical matter, you don’t want to get into an argument with the officer about whether he has a lawful reason to detain you, in fact, the less you say at all, the much better it is for you. You NEVER have anything to gain by voluntarily giving the police any information, as any attorney “worth his salt”, as the late Justice Robert L. Jackson (SCOTUS justice and chief prosecutor in the Nuremberg trials) will advise. You do have to submit to a brief ‘pat-down’ in the course of what the cops term a “Terry Stop” so the officer can ensure his s-a-a-a-a-a-f-t-e-e-e by seeing if you have any obvious weaponry on your person, but, if asked to turn out your pockets, you can legally refuse until actually arrested.

It’s true that cops will at times get pissed off and object to your ‘attitude’, which in most cases, in their minds, you’re ‘guilty’ of that most heinous of crimes…CONTEMPT OF COP. And they will at times use intimidation and their management and the courts will in most cases back it up as a legitimate law enforcement tool. It comes down to picking your battles; you can be legally right, but you have to live with the simple fact that while you may certainly “beat the rap”, you won’t “beat the ride” (e.g., arrested under questionable circumstances, wherein your recourse will be limited to non-existent). Use good judgement and common sense. Just remember, the Founders revolted against the LAWFUL authority of good King George III, and in retrospect, compared to contemporary monarchs, he was actually a very benevolent and just monarch!

Actually what we have is an ingrained aversion to unwanted ADVICE given by people who don’t live here and who aren’t aware of the nuances of our culture. Especially when they try to ADVISE us with pompous statements as to what we should do.

Hi Tim,

No need for the personal insults (that goes for all). We try to keep it civil – and intelligent – at EPautos.

“the use of a literary device as advise.”

The word you’re groping for is ‘advice’, unless you’re into Britishisms for some odd reason. Back to class for you, lamer.

“Figuring out that I am a Canadian ”

No, kiddo, I didn’t figure it out, you confessed. What’s with the reference to Limbaugh? Is a non-sequitor the best you can dredge up in defense of your lame posturing?

“Here is some advise, trailer park debating champions should stay at Freerepublic.”

More “advise” from my ‘advice-or’. Timurthelamer, I gave up on FR in late 2001, mainly because of dimbulbs like you throwing out accusations of “trailer park” dwelling and “tin-foil-hat paranoia”.

Pseudo-erudite wannabe pundits like you are really comical, though you don’t intend to provide comedy. BTW, I wasn’t debating with you, I was simply goading you into posting something ridiculous. You’ve obliged, and I thank you for your cooperation.

Now, think hard and come up with another hockey stick reference. Maybe you could provide a graph for us this time.

“To wit, on population alone, few realize that the total population of the world in 1950 was about
2 billion. If plotted on a graph through recorded history it would look like a straight horizontal line that suddenly shoots near vertical. ”

Nonsense. OK, wait for it, here it comes……

“In the meanwhile TPTB must at some point consider implementing population reduction.”

Yes indeed. That is what must necessarily follow your hockey stick population graph. Do you remember the hockey stick graph invented by the global warmists?

Think, man.

Population controls will never be implemented by rulers, because their economics props are based upon x number of herded cattle to prop up their never ending quest for humiliation, ruination, and misery. They will just let the whole planet become a giant sweltering wasteland. Read TS Eliots the wasteland and think of concrete and sweat when reading it.
The metaphor of cattle upon people’s behavior only serves as an apt analogy in so far as cows really cannot fight back. Once upon a time I thought people could fight back. How did they evolve hoofs for fingers, these new mindless beings…

Just make sure that the line in the sand isn’t the mark left when someone pisses on your grave.

I can’t make sure of that. Any line in the sand brings with it the possibility of violence on the part of the aggressor. As, ultimately, does complete capitulation to all demands from the aggressor.

I’m not trying to come off as a fire-breather who advocates, or intends to practice, some particular form of resistance. No matter what I say or think now, when/if I’m faced with a tense situation, what I do will unfold in the moment.

As a general question, based upon your reading of history, what is your sense of the processes that finally reverse a nation’s descent into government barbarism? Surely some kind of push-back is required, is it not? Because the tendency of the madmen who are drawn to government “service” is always to want more power, never less, is it not?

“We have a case here in Canada ”

Oh, OK. I see where you’re coming from now.

“Just make sure that the line in the sand isn’t the mark left when someone pisses on your grave.”

Hell, that pretty well torpedoes your vow that you wouldn’t offer advice. That advice is worthless, in any case, but it does show your mindset.

The scenarios you portray are at least possible whenever one stands up to a cop, even politely, and I think everyone who writes or reads this site knows that.

What advice would you give to people stopped by cops? Do you recommend reacting to the creeping police state by capitulating to each new intrusion? Do you have a “line in the sand”, and if so, where is it?

“there is still a wide gulf between someone being aware and vigilant on the keyboard and actually being in a face to face situation. ”

I’ve based my method of dealing with cops on actual real life experience. The keyboard only comes into play when I relate that experience.

“There are many subtle tricks and contigencies that are employed that the most level headed citizen will only realize when he/she is chilling out in a cell or when their lawyer informs them about it.”

Yeah, and all of them involve your answers to the cop’s questions. Cops try to get you talking. When that fails, unless the cop has decided to lock you up on a humble, he’ll tire of the exchange. If he has already decided to lock you up, he’ll do so no matter what you say to him, so why cooperate?

“And if all coolness is followed, and all restraint is employed and all current legal knowledge is known- it all goes to shit when the factor the of ‘ lying cop ‘ comes into play. ”

What you’re not addressing here is the difference between getting a ticket and getting locked up. When it’s just a ticket at stake, why bother? When being locked up is what you’re facing, the only thing that will help you is to clam up. The trouble is that you may not know what is at stake, or what the cop has in mind. The default position is to assume the worst and to STFU when porky starts asking questions.

The lying-cop-factor is always in play. The strategy that attorneys always suggest is to give them as little to lie about as you can. Don’t answer questions. Don’t try to tell your side of the story to a cop. Don’t try to make them understand.

Anything you say can and will be used against you. Nothing you say can be used in your defense. That’s all you need to know. The legalistic side of your case is best left to your lawyer.

Get a lawyer and pay him or her a hundred or two as a retainer and get a cell phone number from your attorney and memorize it. Do this now, before you need legal help. It may well turn out to be the best money you ever spent.

Hi Tim,

The advice I gave is based on a lot of personal experience – including a felony arrest for “production/manufacture of a controlled substance (pot) with intent to distribute” when I was 19 and a dumb-ass college student.

There is a fine line between challenging a cop’s authoritay and asserting your rights. Belligerence (know it all-ism) isn’t smart. Neither is “yes sirring” everything the cop says. Merely disengage. Do what the law requires – and not one thing more.

Hi Tim,

I was very careful to encourage politeness when forced to interact with a cop. I did not advocate being confrontational when dealing with America’s Swinest – which I agree is foolish in this day and age.

But that does not mean supinely groveling before the cop.

Declining to “cooperate” with him by answering his leading questions and thereby providing evidence that can – and will – be used against you is neither foolish nor imprudent.

In fact, it is the smartest thing you can do. A cop is not there to “help” you. He is there to bust you. Period. It’s what he does. Why help him do it?

You may have taken issue not with my advice but with the open contempt displayed by my references to the cops themselves in the piece. This is a separate issue.

I refer to cops this way in my articles because I have contempt for them. The “they are just doing their jobs” line doesn’t carry any weight for me. In fact, it makes me think less of cops. What sort of person justifies choosing to brutalize people? Yet that is exactly what they do. Are there “good” cops? Only to the extent that they do not enforce the asinine/evil laws they are charged with enforcing. In which case, they will not remain cops for long.

I have great respect for peace officers. Men who protect lives and property. Who keep the peace. But that is not what we’ve got. We’ve got law enforcers. People who enforce an endless litany of obnoxious, tyrannical and evil edicts without questioning them. All that matters is that “the law says.”

Why regard such people with anything other than contempt?

Eric isn’t the only one giving this advice.

http://www.flexyourrights.org/

Check out the success stories. And I operate under the assumption that everything a cop says is a lie. Especially when I’m called to jury duty.

The truth be told it normally pans out the other way. I am always confrontational with the police whenever I have to interact with them and the net result is they want to get away from you as quickly as possible. It will normally mean getting ticket, in the case of traffic stops, but they do so as quickly as possible.

I really think most cops like the rush they get from seeing a surf fumble and grovel that when they run into one that doesn’t it just makes the interaction less rewarding for them.

All that being said I still suspect I will be tazed at some point so there is always a risk involved. I just figure when good people refuse to act that is when all will be lost.

Hi Vinnie,

That business about “drivers” vs. “traveling” (and so on) has been addressed here at length. I agree in principle but that doesn’t change the fact that – like the income tax and TSA – the government disagrees with us about the rightfulness (and legality) of these things. That UCC1-308 business is as useless as an effective defense against cop/court predation as the rest of the sovereign citizen rigmarole. No offense meant, amigo. I’m with you (and Eddie) in spirit.

But it just doesn’t work.

“total willful ignorance that consumes our public servants at every level of government”

I have an idea that ignorance is always willful, or it couldn’t be called ‘ignorance’. The root word of ignorance is ignore, ain’t it? When I use the word ‘ignorance’ I mean that a person holds a wrong position (or a false belief) by choosing to ignore any evidence contrary to that position.

‘Ignert’ is the way the old timers said it where I grew up, as in, “Ignert armies clash by night”. 😉

this is awesome. what business is it of theirs what i do? i will use this always. thanks ed.

If asked by a “peace officer” where I was going, I would reply, “I don’t feel the need to answer that, Officer (or Deputy). Did I miss out on C-Span where the Congress passed laws requiring a travel permit, like once in South Africa under Apartheid, or the erstwhile Soviet Union? Vot is your next question, Herr Unterstrummfuhrer, my “papers”? Of course, I’d be RECORDING all along, because likely most “peace officers” will interpret both my reticence to divulge information they have no LAWFUL expectation of getting, or pointing out the absurdity of same, as having “Attitude”. The modern camera-equipped cell phone has indeed become the “Great Equalizer” in interactions between law enforcement and the citizenry they’re supposed to “protect and serve”.

And if you’re carrying concealed, you must have your CCW card with you unless you’re in one of the few states that doesn’t require it. That’s an exception to Eric’s statement about not needing govt. ID unless driving on public roads.

Massad Ayoob has done an excellent video regarding interactions with cops while armed. Everyone who carries concealed should view it.

I’m sure it’s this way most places, but not here. In fact, no “permit” is required for CC (for whatever it was worth before), and there is no requirement to inform anyone if you’re carrying. Anyone, let alone police, would be really stupid if they didn’t consider EVERYONE potentially armed here.

The few times I’ve been with other people who were “pulled over,” the officer was polite and never asked about guns… or we talked about guns in a friendly manner after he saw my visible firearm and asked what I carried.

It’s just not a real issue here unless you are doing something stupid that actually threatens other people. And we tend to take care of that personally…

I would love to see space opened up for exploration/colonization but I question giving people the ability to push very large rocks in the earth’s general direction.

poor serfs in Boston

My visceral response to the “poor serfs” description is “not really.” Boston, along with most of the cities of the Northeastern states (and those in other specific regions of the country), has been a bastion of liberal statism for so long that it’s hard to not view what’s happening there now as the natural and INEVITABLE result of all those decades of building up the welfare state (“Where the Welfare State is on the march, the Police State is not far behind.” – Melchior Palyi, Hungarian Economist). Yes, I DO feel sorry for those few lovers and defenders of liberty still living there, but AFAIC, most of those people of Boston are reaping what they’ve sown.

yea, I agree – Boston was terrible when I visited it. Statism and government-worship are everywhere to behold, even when just driving down the highway (http://i.imgur.com/Fw6MeMO.jpg). They sure hate the idea of someone other than the state having the ability to inflict harm! However, remember that just because someone is steadfastly ignorant of their condition as a serf, even to the point of lusting after the bootheel, does not change that they are. It simply lowers their status on the serf-chain, those too stupid to know they are stupid, coupled with the worst sort of stockholm syndrome. Hence, I pity them as the poor serfs they are.

A college friend of mine from TX moved their (job reasons) and ended up marrying a Boston girl – your typical anti-gun liberal, someone who gets a warm fuzzy feeling when driving by that highway sign. Hence, during this ‘lockdown’ that poor guy is stuck at home with nothing but a kitchen knife (as far as I know Boston hasn’t banned those yet) and a most likely terrified wife, depending on the police to come search his home in order to know there isn’t a boogeyman in it. Poor serf.

As for Rooney’s comment, know that Stephen Hawking theorizes that unless space exploration becomes widespread, like in sci-fi movies, humanity will destroy itself. Of course, you suggest this will happen even with such technology – so I guess we’re screwed either way. Eric’s spacecraft I asked about is actually more of a one-way traveling ship to a better planet, away from this hellhole. He called it a ‘modern-day mayflower’.

I wonder. If I were in Boston and the thugs in blue came to my door without a warrant and I refuse to let them in, when they start kicking down my door could I then consider it a home invasion? My rights cannot be suspended except by congress during time of war.

The worst part here is that the people THANKED the police for full-body-cavity search.
They just don’t WANT to understand that they are bowign to a State God with their arms out, begging for the chains to be placed on their wrists…
Amazing this is the place of John Adams. One might say it’s impossible…

Great recommendation, MamaLiberty, on the You and The Police book. I made my teenage son read it and he reread it on his own repeatedly.

The best advise from it is to plead the Fifth and then SHUT UP. No small talk. No discussing the game. No asking for favors like getting a Coke. Shut up and then shut up some more.

Remember, no encounter with a cop will ever produce a positive outcome. The best you can hope for is a neutral outcome, i.e. you just continuing on your way.

I asked a lot of questions when I did a term of grand jury duty a while back.

The one thing that really stands out in my mind was that only 1 case in 1000 ever goes to trial.

The rest of the defendants confess and plead guilty to a lesser charge (plea bargains). And I saw first hand the practice of piling on of additional charges in one case where they were attempting to pressure a suspect into accepting a plea bargain.

Guy either knew his stuff or had a good lawyer. All charges was dropped the day before trial. Prosecutor was certain the guy was guilty and the cop’s evidence was all circumstantial.

If you get hauled in, insist on a trial by jury. And stand your ground. If everyone insisted on a trial by jury the legal system would grind to a halt. The “justice system” relies on confessions and plea deals.

In any case, say nothing to the cops. You cannot talk your way out of being detained or arrested if a copper gets a bug up his backside.

Thus, your best defense against the cops is to say absolutely nothing. Cops will lie and tell you they know everything hoping you’ll be tempted to set the story straight.

As a point of fact, if the cops are trying to get you to talk, they probably don’t have enough information to convict you.

Your job is to stay silent.

Helping the cops convict you won’t be worth a bucket of warm spit to any judge. Judges are happy to pass sentence on anyone stupid enough to talk to the cops.

Check out the link at the bottom under “Our Favorites” called “Qik.”

This will explain the whole thing. Remember, you are not a “driver” (unless you are), you do not “operate” a “motor vehicle” (unless you do), therefore you do not need to show a “license.” Well, anyway, watch the video.

I can always tell when a police officer is going to pull me over. It starts as they rubber neck in the opposite side of traffic as they pass. Then the next thing you know you have one trailing you. At this point you go 5 mph under the speed limit. Stop at every stop sign for a 2 second period. Slow then stop if you see a pedestrian 40 feet from a cross walk. Inside your head its like shit, SOB, here we go again and sure as shit, you hear the siren and now you fill totally like a dufus because you knew it was coming all along and you sat there like a gazelle waiting for the lion to determine when it was going to eat you.

This is why you never let them decide when to pull you over (as the best policy is just to pull off right there). This give them no time to come up with reasonable cause for something you are doing wrong. Don’t let them call you in and make you more and more nervous in the mean time where you are apt to break some law in the nervousness. If you stop right (pull off) there then it addresses the issue that you don’t like to be tailgated but it doesn’t appear you are afraid and might even be construed as helpful even though the intent is anything but.

I’ve found verbal judo “computer mode” to best answer. If you have never read “Verbal Judo” they have several rhetoric methods to behave to various aggresive and beligerent attacks. You see computer mode is simply. Yes..No. Yes.. Kind of like a cyborg soldier or a robocop something they probably can equate well to. Common computer mode phrases “does not compute”.. “Conclusion doesn’t seem valid”…”Premise seems to be misuderstanding”, etc. All without raising your voice or without showing any fear, anger, or emotion. Never ever show emotion, especially anger or fear. I think its interesting on the techniques of how to legally ask not to be searched and “am I free to go?” but to me that would just signal the next step of getting arrested. And these days if you rub one of these guys the wrong way they can easily find some trivial law your breaking (or worse plant evidence) and make your life a living hell. Or if you are too aggressive rhetorically and show them for stupid and they take offense that you outsmarted them while being say comedian, expect to be pulled over next week with them having the weekend to think how to get the upper hand. The real dumb bonehead ones especially don’t like to be pointed out that they are dumb, so you see getting angry or defensive or spinning puns is exactly what they want. The way dumb shits like to think smart is if they can beat a smart guy to a pulp by using monopolistic force of their fist, club or gun. So since you can always fall back to these excellent position of “am I free to go?” in the last line of defense may I first suggest computer mode. Divulge nothing, be polite as a computer would be. You might say this is indifferent but not really. A computer is even more neutral than indifferent.

Case example is my wife. Turns out we were driving on the back roads to look for a hiking trail. We came to the end of road blocked by no other than the U.S. military. We turn around and as we were re-entering the main highway a cop starts tailing us. My wife plays the computer mode judo perfectly. Instead of waiting for him to call the shots to pull us over. She immediately veers off the side of the road. This puts the police in a total quandry ( he almost in shock stops in the middle of the highway), and he immediately pulls behind. Then he hops out as he’s approaching my wife says very logically and computer mode with no inflection in her voice but firmly. “What do you need officer?” Basically this leaves him totally unnerved as my wife is now leading the assertive questions. She does this without any malice and before you know it the police who is apologizing for pulling us over for no reason.

Computer mode works. Answer the questions with the least amount of sentences, incomplete yes and no if possible. Ask direct questions without sarcasm. Be helpful by stopping way before they want you to. Show no malice and show absolutely no emotion.

HR

Being assertive, polite, but of little words, asking the questions, and declaring when you’ve had enough tail gating by making your own point to force the issue now is much better than the other way around.

In HoosierLand, producing any video equipment will get you cuffed in two blinks of an eye. Technically, it’s illegal. Still, when Johnny Law takes your (cell, DVR, whatever) and smashes it underfoot, then smashes you against the hood of his cruiser, then cuffs you and takes you to the klink for processing; it leaves a mark. The only video you’ll see of Johnny Law is either 1) Propaganda, or 2) Covert.