Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #21118 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-07-22 10:06 +0200 |
| Last post | 2015-07-23 08:39 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 353 — 49 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-22 10:06 +0200
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 10:23 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 08:56 +1000
anonymous sims in EU (was: Who pays for a phone..) Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2015-07-23 20:21 +0200
Re: anonymous sims in EU tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-03 20:04 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-04 03:22 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 10:27 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-22 17:00 +0200
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-22 13:26 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 10:00 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 14:22 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Savageduck <savageduck1@(REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-07-22 10:07 -0700
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-22 20:06 +0000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? DevilsPGD <boogabooga@crazyhat.net> - 2015-07-22 13:13 -0700
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 09:08 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Chris Blunt <mail@nospam.com> - 2015-07-24 11:22 +0800
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-24 14:36 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-25 13:12 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-25 19:34 +0000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-25 16:58 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-07-25 17:51 -0700
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 09:57 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-24 14:32 +0200
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Wolfgang Barth <barthwo@spamfence.net> - 2015-07-24 15:38 +0200
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Savageduck <savageduck1@(REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-07-24 09:26 -0700
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-25 13:22 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Savageduck <savageduck1@(REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-07-25 11:19 -0700
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-25 13:17 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Savageduck <savageduck1@(REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-07-25 11:18 -0700
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-25 19:47 +0000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-27 09:46 +0200
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-04 03:50 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-08-04 06:59 -0700
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-08-04 16:21 +0200
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-08-04 08:52 -0700
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 05:30 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-04 19:33 +0200
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-08-06 09:39 +0200
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 12:17 -0700
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 05:41 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-04 17:25 -0700
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 05:26 +1000
voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2015-08-05 20:08 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-05 14:58 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-05 15:16 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-05 12:41 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-05 16:03 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 06:24 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-05 13:34 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-06 04:51 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2015-10-21 19:45 +0000
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 09:17 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2015-10-24 17:49 +0000
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-10-24 13:40 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> - 2015-10-24 19:03 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas John B. <slocombjbEDIT@gmail.xyz> - 2015-10-25 09:52 +0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-10-24 22:28 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Walter Briscoe <wbriscoe@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2015-10-25 08:17 +0000
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-10-25 10:14 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Bert <bert@iphouse.com> - 2015-10-25 18:50 +0000
Re: voting booths in republican areas John B. <slocombjbEDIT@gmail.xyz> - 2015-10-25 18:00 +0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-10-25 10:16 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas John B. <slocombjbEDIT@gmail.xyz> - 2015-10-26 07:24 +0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 10:13 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas John B. <slocombjbEDIT@gmail.xyz> - 2015-10-27 07:09 +0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 20:03 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas John B. <slocombjbEDIT@gmail.xyz> - 2015-10-27 18:33 +0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> - 2015-10-26 08:07 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-10-25 14:58 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> - 2015-10-25 17:10 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-10-26 10:08 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 10:09 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas John B. <slocombjbEDIT@gmail.xyz> - 2015-10-26 07:27 +0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 10:14 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas John B. <slocombjbEDIT@gmail.xyz> - 2015-10-27 07:11 +0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-10-26 20:09 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Walter Briscoe <wbriscoe@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2015-10-26 21:24 +0000
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 23:18 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 13:22 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-05 13:41 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 14:53 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "JHY" <JHY5566@nospam.com> - 2015-08-06 15:35 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 23:26 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "JHY" <JHY5566@nospam.com> - 2015-08-06 16:35 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 09:46 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-06 14:40 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas "JHY" <JHY5566@nospam.com> - 2015-08-07 06:02 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-08 01:09 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 14:04 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas DevilsPGD <boogabooga@crazyhat.net> - 2015-08-09 00:14 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-09 12:42 +0000
Re: voting booths in republican areas Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2015-08-10 00:18 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-09 17:50 +0000
Re: voting booths in republican areas Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-09 23:19 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-09 23:10 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas John B. <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 08:43 +0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-10 13:40 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-11 00:21 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas John B. <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 06:57 +0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-11 09:57 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas John B. <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 08:20 +0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-12 11:21 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-12 19:50 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-12 16:21 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-13 12:08 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-13 09:58 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-13 17:04 +0200
security concept "rule of least priviledge" (was: voting booths in repu areas) Jack Ryan <noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> - 2015-08-17 16:42 -0400
Re: security concept "rule of least priviledge" (was: voting booths in repu areas) "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-18 10:08 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas John B. <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> - 2015-08-13 06:26 +0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-13 09:38 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-13 17:14 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-13 11:42 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-13 18:47 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-13 14:22 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas John B. <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 07:00 +0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-14 11:34 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas John B. <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 06:53 +0700
what's entrapment (was: voting booths in republican areas) Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2015-08-15 14:13 +0000
Re: what's entrapment (was: voting booths in republican areas) John B. <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 11:20 +0700
Re: what's entrapment Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201508.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2015-08-18 22:06 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas John B. <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 06:43 +0700
prosecutors do not care about guilt (was: voting booths in republican areas) Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2015-08-15 13:42 +0000
Re: prosecutors do not care about guilt (was: voting booths in republican areas) John B. <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 11:08 +0700
Re: prosecutors do not care about guilt (was: voting booths in republican areas) Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-16 17:14 +0200
Re: prosecutors do not care about guilt Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2015-08-17 22:57 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-12 13:07 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-12 18:31 +0000
Re: voting booths in republican areas tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-12 22:44 -0400
why disclose personal info (was: voting booths in republican areas) Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2015-08-15 13:20 +0000
Re: why disclose personal info David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-08-15 15:12 +0100
Re: why disclose personal info Bert <bert@iphouse.com> - 2015-08-15 15:08 +0000
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 08:26 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-12 08:23 -0700
accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea (was: voting booths..) Jack Ryan <noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> - 2015-08-15 09:50 -0400
Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea (was: voting booths..) lew <citrustwosac@google.mailer.company.invalid> - 2015-08-15 16:36 +0000
Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea (was: voting booths..) The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 10:55 -0700
Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea (was: voting booths..) BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-15 14:44 -0500
Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea (was: voting booths..) The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 19:34 -0700
Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea (was: voting booths..) John B. <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 09:54 +0700
Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea (was: voting booths..) F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-18 11:02 +1000
Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2015-08-22 12:55 +0000
Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-22 19:08 +0200
security vs. manners (was: accommodating unreasonable searches..) Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2015-08-24 00:48 +0200
Re: security vs. manners Jack Ryan <noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> - 2015-08-24 14:18 -0400
Re: security vs. manners The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-24 19:59 -0700
Re: security vs. manners Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-25 13:40 +0200
Re: security vs. manners Travis Bickle <3S96@taxi.net> - 2015-08-25 12:31 -0400
Re: security vs. manners lew <citrustwosac@google.mailer.company.invalid> - 2015-08-25 16:38 +0000
Re: security vs. manners "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-26 09:29 -0400
Re: security vs. manners "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> - 2015-08-26 10:19 -0400
Re: security vs. manners "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-26 11:45 -0400
Re: security vs. manners "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> - 2015-08-26 13:53 -0400
Re: security vs. manners BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-26 14:39 -0500
Re: security vs. manners "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> - 2015-08-26 16:56 -0400
Re: security vs. manners BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-26 16:08 -0500
Re: security vs. manners "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> - 2015-08-26 17:33 -0400
Re: security vs. manners BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-26 17:32 -0500
Re: security vs. manners "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> - 2015-08-26 19:51 -0400
Re: security vs. manners BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-26 18:59 -0500
Re: security vs. manners "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> - 2015-08-27 08:42 -0400
Re: security vs. manners BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-27 09:24 -0500
Re: security vs. manners tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-26 22:52 -0400
Re: security vs. manners The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-25 09:57 -0700
Re: security vs. manners Bob Henson <rh547477@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 15:36 +0100
Re: security vs. manners "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> - 2015-08-25 21:04 -0400
Re: security vs. manners tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-26 03:25 -0400
Re: security vs. manners "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-26 09:26 -0400
Re: security vs. manners The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-26 12:18 -0700
Re: security vs. manners (was: accommodating unreasonable searches..) TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2015-08-25 08:36 -0400
Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea (was: voting booths..) noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) - 2015-08-16 23:19 +0000
Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea (was: voting booths..) "Stuart McCall" <smccall@myunrealbox.com> - 2015-08-17 18:08 +0100
Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea Jack Ryan <noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> - 2015-08-17 17:22 -0400
Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea (was: voting booths..) noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) - 2015-08-17 23:15 +0000
Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea (was: voting booths..) "Stuart McCall" <smccall@myunrealbox.com> - 2015-08-18 17:11 +0100
Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea (was: voting booths..) noydb@no.way (Bruce Sinclair) - 2015-08-18 23:03 +0000
Re: accommodating unreasonable searches - bad idea (was: voting booths..) Joe Makowiec <makowiec@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-19 13:53 +0000
Re: voting booths in republican areas John B. <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> - 2015-08-11 06:49 +0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-06 17:25 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-06 19:51 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 19:31 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-06 21:56 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-06 20:51 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-06 21:48 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 19:29 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "JHY" <JHY5566@nospam.com> - 2015-08-07 15:40 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-07 00:08 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "JHY" <JHY5566@nospam.com> - 2015-08-07 21:08 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-08 01:04 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 13:58 +1000
do absentee voters need photo id? (was: voting booths in republican areas) Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201508.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2015-08-08 14:03 +0200
Re: do absentee voters need photo id? (was: voting booths in republican areas) Elias <elias@nowherenohow.com> - 2015-08-08 10:02 -0500
Re: do absentee voters need photo id? (was: voting booths in republican areas) Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-08 21:28 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas "JHY" <JHY5566@nospam.com> - 2015-08-06 15:23 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas News <News@Group.Post> - 2015-08-06 07:00 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-06 04:59 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 11:33 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-08-06 15:34 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-06 18:50 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 16:55 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-06 09:12 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-06 08:40 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-08-06 07:26 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-06 12:16 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-06 13:24 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-06 12:16 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-06 13:22 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-06 07:35 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-08-06 14:36 +0000
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-06 12:18 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-06 13:31 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 11:46 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-06 14:04 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 12:14 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-06 14:27 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 11:44 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-06 13:58 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 12:12 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 11:36 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2015-08-10 20:05 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 06:18 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-05 15:27 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-05 13:38 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 15:25 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-05 15:19 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-06 09:07 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-06 08:38 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-08-06 07:25 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-06 11:11 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-06 07:31 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-06 12:02 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-06 11:14 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 11:38 -0700
leader's campaigns should be financed by banks, or education? (was: vot booths..) Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2015-08-07 14:58 +0200
Re: leader's campaigns should be financed by banks, or education? (was: vot booths..) "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-07 10:56 -0400
Re: leader's campaigns should be financed by banks, or education? (was: vot booths..) "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-08 05:16 +1000
Re: leader's campaigns should be financed by banks, or education? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201508.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2015-08-25 22:45 +0200
Re: leader's campaigns should be financed by banks, or education? "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-26 09:24 -0400
Re: leader's campaigns should be financed by banks, or education? Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2015-08-27 13:47 +0000
Re: leader's campaigns should be financed by banks, or education? TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2015-08-27 10:20 -0400
q) campaigns should be financed by banks, or education? a) education Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2015-09-03 08:44 +0000
comp.mobile.android "The Sorceress of Qar" <sorceress@qar.qanar.com> - 2015-08-27 09:23 -0500
Re: leader's campaigns should be financed by banks, or education? "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-27 13:01 -0400
Re: leader's campaigns should be financed by banks, or education? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201509.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2015-09-06 00:12 +0200
Re: leader's campaigns should be financed by banks, or education? (was: vot booths..) Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-08 16:21 -0700
Re: leader's campaigns should be financed by banks, or education? Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201508.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2015-08-22 23:11 +0200
Re: leader's campaigns should be financed by banks, or education? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-22 20:54 -0700
Re: leader's campaigns should be financed by banks, or education? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-08-22 23:40 -0500
Bev's reverse logic (was: leader's campaigns..) Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2015-09-03 09:22 +0200
Re: Bev's reverse logic David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2015-09-03 08:44 +0100
Re: leader's campaigns should be financed by banks, or education? TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2015-08-23 08:49 -0400
small campaign donations (was: leader's campaigns..) Jack Ryan <noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> - 2015-08-31 16:06 -0400
leader's campaigns should be financed by banks, or education? (was: vot booths..) Jack Ryan <noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> - 2015-08-12 04:08 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Aldo Raine <apache@scalpem.net> - 2015-08-05 18:13 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-05 16:02 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Mike Yetto <unet.lighthouse@xoxy.net> - 2015-08-06 18:27 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Aldo Raine <apache@scalpem.net> - 2015-08-07 12:36 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-07 12:38 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-08-10 08:51 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-10 22:28 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-08-11 08:53 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-11 01:06 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-08-11 10:25 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-08-11 17:46 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-08-12 09:54 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-05 19:00 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas Aldo Raine <apache@scalpem.net> - 2015-08-07 12:39 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas (was: Who pays..) Bert <bert@iphouse.com> - 2015-08-06 16:14 +0000
Re: voting booths in republican areas TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2015-08-18 09:07 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-18 09:49 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2015-08-18 11:46 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-18 12:38 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2015-08-18 18:51 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-19 11:14 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-19 08:31 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-19 12:56 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-19 11:57 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-19 15:04 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-19 12:22 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-19 15:36 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 06:09 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-19 13:10 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-24 11:03 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-08-19 12:39 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Joe Makowiec <makowiec@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-19 20:09 +0000
Re: voting booths in republican areas Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-08-19 14:27 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-19 14:58 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-08-19 16:10 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2015-08-20 08:32 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-24 11:14 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-24 08:33 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-08-24 09:37 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-24 15:27 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-24 11:13 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2015-08-19 16:34 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-08-19 14:46 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2015-08-20 12:40 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-08-20 09:55 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-08-20 10:14 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2015-08-20 22:35 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-24 11:09 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-24 11:02 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-19 00:03 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2015-08-18 19:01 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2015-08-19 19:08 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 09:34 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> - 2015-08-18 23:57 +0200
Re: voting booths in republican areas TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2015-08-18 19:05 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 09:28 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2015-08-19 19:14 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2015-08-19 09:09 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-19 07:15 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 05:56 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 05:52 +1000
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 13:15 -0700
Re: voting booths in republican areas David Solimano <david@solimano.org> - 2015-08-06 22:52 -0400
Re: voting booths in republican areas BobbyK <bknight@Conramp.net> - 2015-08-06 21:59 -0500
Re: voting booths in republican areas The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-06 20:26 -0700
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-04 14:03 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-25 13:11 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-26 05:34 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-25 20:04 +0000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Dieghettino <d@casa.mia> - 2015-07-26 06:41 +0000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 08:45 +1000
non-EU travellers must carry passports (was: Who pays..) Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2015-08-01 20:26 +0200
Re: non-EU travellers must carry passports cl@isbd.net - 2015-08-01 21:33 +0100
Re: non-EU travellers must carry passports tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-03 23:11 -0400
Re: non-EU travellers must carry passports cl@isbd.net - 2015-08-04 14:25 +0100
Re: non-EU travellers must carry passports Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201508.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2015-08-05 18:56 +0200
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-04 04:05 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-08-04 07:03 -0700
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-04 14:11 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-04 11:19 -0700
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-08-04 12:19 -0700
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-08-04 12:32 -0700
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-08-04 15:40 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2015-08-04 14:15 -0700
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-05 05:36 +1000
id required at New Mexico's illegal checkpoints? *no* Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2015-08-05 20:05 +0000
Re: id required at New Mexico's illegal checkpoints? *no* Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-08-05 13:19 -0700
Re: id required at New Mexico's illegal checkpoints? *no* tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-06 04:46 -0400
Re: id required at New Mexico's illegal checkpoints? *no* "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-06 09:10 -0400
Re: id required at New Mexico's illegal checkpoints? *no* tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-08-06 14:51 -0400
Re: id required at New Mexico's illegal checkpoints? *no* "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> - 2015-08-06 14:58 -0400
id required at New Mexico's illegal checkpoints? *no* Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2015-08-08 08:48 +0200
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-26 18:45 +0000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-27 10:04 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-27 09:51 +0200
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2015-07-28 09:30 +0200
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-30 20:24 +1000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-07-25 19:57 +0000
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> - 2015-07-25 16:57 -0400
Re: Who pays for a phone call to a US phone number, italy to italy? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-07-23 08:39 +1000
Page 6 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 18 Next page →
| From | John B. <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 08:20 +0700 |
| Subject | Re: voting booths in republican areas |
| Message-ID | <287lsa9t06u23sbai8j9mbktm1rn5d6lah@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #21952 |
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:57:39 -0400, "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote: >"John B." <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:rbeisa141693c76cb4mc9c6e41mqhag5o7@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 00:21:08 +0200, Axel Berger >> <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> wrote: >> >>>The Real Bev wrote: >>>> But if a cop really wants to know who you are and you >>>> can't produce some sort of acceptable explanation/paper, he can make >>>> life a living hell for you. >>> >>>And you really believe than in America you can tell police your name >>>is >>>Mickey Mouse and they'll just accept that and let you go? That's where >>>ID really makes life much easier for us and far less hassle. >>> >>>Axel >> >> I was under the impression that you must advise the police of your >> identification so googled it and find that some 25 states have a law >> that says they you must identify yourself if asked and the U.S. >> Supreme Court has ruled that the law is permissible if a state >> implements it. > >This is not so clear-cut. There are only four states that have a law >that mandates that you must identify yourself when asked to by a law >enforcement officer for any reason or no reason. In the other states, a >police officer can ask for ID at anytime but you are under no obligation >to provide it unless you are being detained and to be detained an >officer must suspect you of committing a crime or that you are about to >commit a crime. If you are detained for any other reason, that itself >is illegal. Police do have ways, as we know, of making life difficult >when you don't oblige to their demand even if they are unlawful demands. >You have to make a choice whether to stand up for your rights or allow >them to be violated. Having a camera to record the "event" helps. >Still, there are cases where even that doesn't change things and police >blatantly violate one's rights. It seems that there are only very few >instances where an officer who does that ever suffers any consequences >of it. The system of police departments investigating themselves when >an officer is suspected of wrongdoing is problematic in itself. But in reality why should one care if someone asks their name? Businessmen almost always hand out name cards showing their name and telephone numbers and usually an address any time that they get close to anyone. The much vilified police all wear a badge with their serial number on it, the military all wear "name tags" on their uniforms, mechanics usually wear a shirt with their name embroidered over the pocket, in athletic events the participants all wear numbers for identification, gee... even a prisoner of war is required to give his name, rank and serial number. -- cheers, John B.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 11:21 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: voting booths in republican areas |
| Message-ID | <mqfo6b$q63$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #21968 |
"John B." <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> wrote in message news:287lsa9t06u23sbai8j9mbktm1rn5d6lah@4ax.com... > On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:57:39 -0400, "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> > wrote: > >>"John B." <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:rbeisa141693c76cb4mc9c6e41mqhag5o7@4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 00:21:08 +0200, Axel Berger >>> <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> wrote: >>> >>>>The Real Bev wrote: >>>>> But if a cop really wants to know who you are and you >>>>> can't produce some sort of acceptable explanation/paper, he can >>>>> make >>>>> life a living hell for you. >>>> >>>>And you really believe than in America you can tell police your name >>>>is >>>>Mickey Mouse and they'll just accept that and let you go? That's >>>>where >>>>ID really makes life much easier for us and far less hassle. >>>> >>>>Axel >>> >>> I was under the impression that you must advise the police of your >>> identification so googled it and find that some 25 states have a law >>> that says they you must identify yourself if asked and the U.S. >>> Supreme Court has ruled that the law is permissible if a state >>> implements it. >> >>This is not so clear-cut. There are only four states that have a law >>that mandates that you must identify yourself when asked to by a law >>enforcement officer for any reason or no reason. In the other states, >>a >>police officer can ask for ID at anytime but you are under no >>obligation >>to provide it unless you are being detained and to be detained an >>officer must suspect you of committing a crime or that you are about >>to >>commit a crime. If you are detained for any other reason, that itself >>is illegal. Police do have ways, as we know, of making life difficult >>when you don't oblige to their demand even if they are unlawful >>demands. >>You have to make a choice whether to stand up for your rights or allow >>them to be violated. Having a camera to record the "event" helps. >>Still, there are cases where even that doesn't change things and >>police >>blatantly violate one's rights. It seems that there are only very few >>instances where an officer who does that ever suffers any consequences >>of it. The system of police departments investigating themselves when >>an officer is suspected of wrongdoing is problematic in itself. > > But in reality why should one care if someone asks their name? > Businessmen almost always hand out name cards showing their name and > telephone numbers and usually an address any time that they get close > to anyone. The much vilified police all wear a badge with their serial > number on it, the military all wear "name tags" on their uniforms, > mechanics usually wear a shirt with their name embroidered over the > pocket, in athletic events the participants all wear numbers for > identification, gee... even a prisoner of war is required to give his > name, rank and serial number. If I am going about my business, doing nothing wrong and a police officer walks up to me and wants my ID then I would certainly object to it. We all have a right to go about our business without being harassed. I don't ascribe to the notion that if I have "nothing to hide" then I shouldn't worry. I have nothing to hide but should I just allow police officers into my home to search it? No. Police officers wear badges and name tags, yes. They are public servants. As trite as it may sound, they work for us and we pay their salaries (very high ones where I live, averaging about $150,000.00 per year, some earning well over $200,000.00 per year). They should not hide their identities from the people they work for and in many areas they are required to disclose their names and badge numbers whenever they are requested to do so by a citizen. They are vilified but in many cases, they have earned that vilification. I have seen it up close. Some certainly have the attitude that they live under a different set of laws. While you and I will receive traffic tickets for breaking traffic laws, they don't. I live amongst many police officers right in my own neighborhood. Within the eight homes that surround mine, six are owned by police officers. I've spent time with them, they break the very traffic laws they ticket people like us for. For others, there is a bully mentality and the public are treated by them as an enemy rather than someone they are supposed to serve. We do not have to mindlessly comply with every directive they give simply because they are police officers. They are public servants, not the public's masters. We are seeing an increasing eroding of our rights. We are seeing an increasing militarization of police departments. Police officers are not soldiers. Soldiers have a different role, they are sent to deal with and eradicate an enemy. Police officers are supposed to serve the public. When you dress them like soldiers, arm them like soldiers, equip them like soldiers, and train them like soldiers, then they will act like soldiers and treat the people they are supposed to serve as if we are their enemy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 19:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: voting booths in republican areas |
| Message-ID | <55CB877C.C2638AD2@B.Maus.De> |
| In reply to | #21975 |
PAS wrote: > If I am going about my business, doing nothing wrong and a police > officer walks up to me and wants my ID then I would certainly > object to it. Just one example (logish anecdote coming up). I was driving home through a residential area, crawling actually as a) I'm not at my most alert at three in the morning and b) although there tend to be few playing kids out at that time of day I knew the area and ingrained habits persist. With my out of town car regisutration (my main residence was still at my parents home) it did look a bit like someone scouting out a place to burgle. When police stopped me and asked who I was and what I was doing I could show my registration of residence for my student's accomodation in the neighbourhood and they were entirely satisfied with that. Did I fell unfairly persecuted? Absolutely not! Was I grateful for police keeping an open eye on my neighbourhood and pursuing anything striking them as unsusual? Yes, absolutely! I have been stopped and queried at other times and always seen it as competely approriate. At all time the police were polite and helpful. Even in Israel coming out of a Palastinian area after a shortcut I may have not strictly been allowed to take (what tourist can remeber all those complications) I was thoroughly searched and even had to lift my t-shirt to prove it was all just fat under there (in a separate room which I found overly considerate but a nice touch) but the police were entirely poite and even friendly. (Not the woman, women officers seem to think they must not appear friendly and go out of their ways to make themselves appear nasty - they seem to do that all over the world.) I was well aware of the reasons for their caution and grateful for it, as it was all to my own benefit. I felt safer in Israel than many other places I've been, safer by far than in the US. So why should I not comply when poice ask polite question in pursuit of their duty and while protecting me and people like me? > Police officers are supposed to serve the public. Exactly. And that service does not start and end with consoling lost children and guiding them home. There are actual living criminals around and sometimes I look and act like one of those. So why not answer a polite question help to clear that up immediately? Axel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-12 16:21 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: voting booths in republican areas |
| Message-ID | <mqg9pr$46s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #21986 |
"Axel Berger" <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> wrote in message
news:55CB877C.C2638AD2@B.Maus.De...
> PAS wrote:
>> If I am going about my business, doing nothing wrong and a police
>> officer walks up to me and wants my ID then I would certainly
>> object to it.
>
> Just one example (logish anecdote coming up). I was driving home
> through
> a residential area, crawling actually as a) I'm not at my most alert
> at
> three in the morning and b) although there tend to be few playing kids
> out at that time of day I knew the area and ingrained habits persist.
> With my out of town car regisutration (my main residence was still at
> my
> parents home) it did look a bit like someone scouting out a place to
> burgle. When police stopped me and asked who I was and what I was
> doing
> I could show my registration of residence for my student's
> accomodation
> in the neighbourhood and they were entirely satisfied with that.
>
> Did I fell unfairly persecuted? Absolutely not!
> Was I grateful for police keeping an open eye on my neighbourhood and
> pursuing anything striking them as unsusual? Yes, absolutely!
>
> I have been stopped and queried at other times and always seen it as
> competely approriate. At all time the police were polite and helpful.
> Even in Israel coming out of a Palastinian area after a shortcut I may
> have not strictly been allowed to take (what tourist can remeber all
> those complications) I was thoroughly searched and even had to lift my
> t-shirt to prove it was all just fat under there (in a separate room
> which I found overly considerate but a nice touch) but the police were
> entirely poite and even friendly. (Not the woman, women officers seem
> to
> think they must not appear friendly and go out of their ways to make
> themselves appear nasty - they seem to do that all over the world.) I
> was well aware of the reasons for their caution and grateful for it,
> as
> it was all to my own benefit. I felt safer in Israel than many other
> places I've been, safer by far than in the US.
>
> So why should I not comply when poice ask polite question in pursuit
> of
> their duty and while protecting me and people like me?
I believe this to be a dangerous road to travel down. I don't accept
"we're just trying to keep you safe" as a reason to impede upon my
rights. As Ben Franklin said "They who can give up essential liberty to
obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety". I
believe it to be an essential liberty to go about my business legally
and not to be questioned by police.
>> Police officers are supposed to serve the public.
>
> Exactly. And that service does not start and end with consoling lost
> children and guiding them home. There are actual living criminals
> around
> and sometimes I look and act like one of those. So why not answer a
> polite question help to clear that up immediately?
The fact that there are criminals about does not put all of us into the
category of being a criminal or suspicious person. But we are at the
point now where quite often we are treated as if we are criminals even
though we are not engaging in any illegal activity. For example, in the
USA we have a Constitutionally protected right to do certain things. I
enjoy photography. Not that I've done this but I've witnessed others
doing this: we have a right to record the police while they exercise
their duty as long as we are not interfering. But some police officers
don't want to be recorded. I've seen them blatantly lie and tell
someone that doing so is illegal and then arrest them for it. The
police officer knows it's an illegal arrest but they can make life
difficult for someone simply because "they can". The person will spend
a night in jail and then the charges get dropped because the person
never did anything wrong in the first place. The officer will rarely,
if ever, suffer any consequence of illegally arresting someone even
though he committed a felony ("denial of someone's right under color of
law" is what that is). So, the officer got what he/she wanted which was
to bully someone and keep them from recording. It happens a lot, I've
seen it. As a taxpayer where I live, I've seen my tax dollars go to
paying lawsuit settlements, one in particular where a police sergeant
prohibited a reporter from recording and arrested him for not complying
with his illegal orders. The officer was extremely arrogant about it to
as you can see in the video:
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/suffolk-county-police-department-must-pay-200-000-for-false-arrest-of-video-journalist-6674451
The problem with this and other incidents like it is that the offending
police officer never suffered any consequences for his actions. They
know that the taxpayers have to foot the bill for their illegal
behavior. In this case we have a sergeant with 30 years in the job (and
bragging about it) who illegally arrested someone. HIs punishment?
Nothing, and they pay this guy $178,000.00 per year.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 12:08 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: voting booths in republican areas |
| Message-ID | <55CC6CAE.F6F3D413@B.Maus.De> |
| In reply to | #21992 |
PAS wrote: > I don't accept "we're just trying to keep you safe" as a reason > to impede upon my rights. Agreed. But I don't consider a polite and entirely reasonable question an imposition on my rights. > They who can give up essential liberty I don't and I didn't. > does not put all of us into the > category of being a criminal or suspicious person. Maybe not. My main problem as a citizen is that police suspect far too few perpatrators not too many. Organized Gypsy bads from south-east Europe are roaming or towns and committing burglaries on an assemböy-line basis, often fronting children who can't be prosecuted. Searches in living quarters for one reason often turn up dozens of unrelated crimes and criminals. Axel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 09:58 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: voting booths in republican areas |
| Message-ID | <mqi7mr$cij$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #22002 |
>"Axel Berger" <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> wrote in message >news:55CC6CAE.F6F3D413@B.Maus.De... >>PAS wrote: >> I don't accept "we're just trying to keep you safe" as a reason >> to impede upon my rights. >Agreed. But I don't consider a polite and entirely reasonable question >an imposition on my rights. Perhaps that depends on what one considers "reasonable". For example, is It reasonable for a police officer to ask me for my ID when I am doing something completely legal like taking a photograph of a building while on a public street? Is it reasonable that I should be questioned? I don't think so, no matter how polite the officer is. It's really none of their business who I am and what I'm doing or where I'm going when I am doing nothing wrong. This happened to me. The officer asked me for my ID and I politely declined to provide it since there is no law comelling me to do so. At that point, the police officer lied and said that anytime I must provide ID anytime a police officer requests one and that I will be arested if I did not provide it. I wasn't under arrest and I couldn't be detained because there was no reasonable suspicion that I commited a crime. So, I did not have to provide ID. While remaining polite, I told the officer that he was wrong and he knew he ws wrong - I don't have to provide ID and he cannot arrest me for not providing it, at least legally arrest me. He then grew agitated and it became clear that he was trying to bully me and did not like being challenged. At that point I requested that he call his supervisor to the scene and that I was no longer going to answer any questions or speak to him. He walked away at that point. Some might say that could have avoided a potentailly ugly situation by giving my ID but I look at this way: the officer could have avoided an ugly situation by not harassing a citizen who was not doing anything wrong. >> They who can give up essential liberty >I don't and I didn't. Perhaps not but if citizens allow the police to infringe on their rights in the name of security then they certainly have given up their liberty. >> does not put all of us into the >> category of being a criminal or suspicious person. >Maybe not. My main problem as a citizen is that police suspect far too >few perpatrators not too many. Organized Gypsy bads from south-east >Europe are roaming or towns and committing burglaries on an >assemböy-line basis, often fronting children who can't be prosecuted. >Searches in living quarters for one reason often turn up dozens of >unrelated crimes and criminals. I know a little of what you speak in regards to the gypsies. Are police officers permitted to do a home search without a warrant? They cannot do that here and doing so can become a very dangerous situation for both the occupants and the police officers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 17:04 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: voting booths in republican areas |
| Message-ID | <55CCB1EA.D2FC846F@B.Maus.De> |
| In reply to | #22006 |
PAS wrote: > Are police > officers permitted to do a home search without a warrant? No they're not, and those warrants are not easy to come by (except if they suspect tax evasion, then it's a dooddle). Those criminal gangs often pose as refugees and let themselves be housed, fed, get dentistry treatment and what not at tax payers' expense. But whenever one of the rare searches does happen for a good and valid reason it's truly shocking how much else turns up every time. Axel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jack Ryan <noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-17 16:42 -0400 |
| Subject | security concept "rule of least priviledge" (was: voting booths in repu areas) |
| Message-ID | <c21376969d0ed49ac4038b2c0fb3f6ee@remailer.cpunk.us> |
| In reply to | #21986 |
> Just one example (logish anecdote coming up). I was driving home > through a residential area, crawling actually as a) I'm not at my > most alert at three in the morning and b) although there tend to be > few playing kids out at that time of day I knew the area and > ingrained habits persist. With my out of town car regisutration (my > main residence was still at my parents home) it did look a bit like > someone scouting out a place to burgle. When police stopped me... > > Did I fell unfairly persecuted? Absolutely not! * Driving at 3am is not probable cause for criminal activity. * Driving slow is not probable cause for criminal activity (unless you're driving under the /min/ speed limit on a highway). * Driving with non-local tags is not probable cause for criminal activity, if the tags are locally compliant. So of course the stop was unreasonable. It's unclear where you were in the above scenario, but if in the US then it was absolutely unfair. The 4th amendment of the US Constitution protects everyone equally, not to everyone except Axel Berger. > Even in Israel coming out of a Palastinian area after a shortcut I > may have not strictly been allowed to take.. Then in that case you *may* have been a criminal, in which case it's not an interesting scenario. Of course there's nothing wrong with putting criminal offenders through the process. We were talking about non-criminals here. > So why should I not comply when poice ask polite question in pursuit > of their duty and while protecting me and people like me? When non-criminals are harassed, and they needlessly and naively disclose information, they are *enablers*. Rewarding those who mistreat ordinary non-criminals encourages more attacks against personal freedoms. It's cowardly, and it enables to intrusion to persist and affect more people. Everyone who knows their rights has a duty to stand up for themselves, if not for the greater good.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-18 10:08 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: security concept "rule of least priviledge" (was: voting booths in repu areas) |
| Message-ID | <mqve52$fvt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #22069 |
"Jack Ryan" <noreply@remailer.cpunk.us> wrote in message news:c21376969d0ed49ac4038b2c0fb3f6ee@remailer.cpunk.us... >> Just one example (logish anecdote coming up). I was driving home >> through a residential area, crawling actually as a) I'm not at my >> most alert at three in the morning and b) although there tend to be >> few playing kids out at that time of day I knew the area and >> ingrained habits persist. With my out of town car regisutration (my >> main residence was still at my parents home) it did look a bit like >> someone scouting out a place to burgle. When police stopped me... >> >> Did I fell unfairly persecuted? Absolutely not! > > * Driving at 3am is not probable cause for criminal activity. > > * Driving slow is not probable cause for criminal activity (unless > you're driving under the /min/ speed limit on a highway). > > * Driving with non-local tags is not probable cause for criminal > activity, if the tags are locally compliant. > > So of course the stop was unreasonable. It's unclear where you were > in the above scenario, but if in the US then it was absolutely unfair. > The 4th amendment of the US Constitution protects everyone equally, > not to everyone except Axel Berger. > >> Even in Israel coming out of a Palastinian area after a shortcut I >> may have not strictly been allowed to take.. > > Then in that case you *may* have been a criminal, in which case it's > not an interesting scenario. Of course there's nothing wrong with > putting criminal offenders through the process. We were talking about > non-criminals here. > >> So why should I not comply when poice ask polite question in pursuit >> of their duty and while protecting me and people like me? > > When non-criminals are harassed, and they needlessly and naively > disclose information, they are *enablers*. Rewarding those who > mistreat ordinary non-criminals encourages more attacks against > personal freedoms. It's cowardly, and it enables to intrusion to > persist and affect more people. Everyone who knows their rights has a > duty to stand up for themselves, if not for the greater good. Jack, I guess it's an outdated notion that we expect officers to uphold their oath, one part of which is to protect and defend the Constitution. It alarms me when I hear "they're just trying to keep us safe" argument. Law enforcement has become a business and a revenue stream for municipalities. How exactly is it "keeping us safe" when some are unreasonably and needlessly harassed when they have done nothing wrong? Part of this problem is the "numbers". Police officers are encouraged to make arrests, they are given quotas to fulfill despite claims to the contrary. My son is in the NYPD Academy right now. He was told that to get ahead you have to make arrests, the more the better. "There's always something you can get just about anyone on" is what he was told. That's pretty scary if you ask me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John B. <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 06:26 +0700 |
| Subject | Re: voting booths in republican areas |
| Message-ID | <9sknsa5jfv2a86ettmln1dqjsftj6mmjkd@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #21975 |
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:21:18 -0400, "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote: >"John B." <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:287lsa9t06u23sbai8j9mbktm1rn5d6lah@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:57:39 -0400, "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> >> wrote: >> >>>"John B." <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:rbeisa141693c76cb4mc9c6e41mqhag5o7@4ax.com... >>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 00:21:08 +0200, Axel Berger >>>> <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> wrote: >>>> >>>>>The Real Bev wrote: >>>>>> But if a cop really wants to know who you are and you >>>>>> can't produce some sort of acceptable explanation/paper, he can >>>>>> make >>>>>> life a living hell for you. >>>>> >>>>>And you really believe than in America you can tell police your name >>>>>is >>>>>Mickey Mouse and they'll just accept that and let you go? That's >>>>>where >>>>>ID really makes life much easier for us and far less hassle. >>>>> >>>>>Axel >>>> >>>> I was under the impression that you must advise the police of your >>>> identification so googled it and find that some 25 states have a law >>>> that says they you must identify yourself if asked and the U.S. >>>> Supreme Court has ruled that the law is permissible if a state >>>> implements it. >>> >>>This is not so clear-cut. There are only four states that have a law >>>that mandates that you must identify yourself when asked to by a law >>>enforcement officer for any reason or no reason. In the other states, >>>a >>>police officer can ask for ID at anytime but you are under no >>>obligation >>>to provide it unless you are being detained and to be detained an >>>officer must suspect you of committing a crime or that you are about >>>to >>>commit a crime. If you are detained for any other reason, that itself >>>is illegal. Police do have ways, as we know, of making life difficult >>>when you don't oblige to their demand even if they are unlawful >>>demands. >>>You have to make a choice whether to stand up for your rights or allow >>>them to be violated. Having a camera to record the "event" helps. >>>Still, there are cases where even that doesn't change things and >>>police >>>blatantly violate one's rights. It seems that there are only very few >>>instances where an officer who does that ever suffers any consequences >>>of it. The system of police departments investigating themselves when >>>an officer is suspected of wrongdoing is problematic in itself. >> >> But in reality why should one care if someone asks their name? >> Businessmen almost always hand out name cards showing their name and >> telephone numbers and usually an address any time that they get close >> to anyone. The much vilified police all wear a badge with their serial >> number on it, the military all wear "name tags" on their uniforms, >> mechanics usually wear a shirt with their name embroidered over the >> pocket, in athletic events the participants all wear numbers for >> identification, gee... even a prisoner of war is required to give his >> name, rank and serial number. > >If I am going about my business, doing nothing wrong and a police >officer walks up to me and wants my ID then I would certainly object to >it. We all have a right to go about our business without being >harassed. I don't ascribe to the notion that if I have "nothing to >hide" then I shouldn't worry. I have nothing to hide but should I just >allow police officers into my home to search it? No. Seriously? You are walking down the street, in broad daylight, clapping your hands and singing a happy song, and a policeman leaps out of a hidden doorway and demands your name? Really truly? Or your were skulking in the shadows trying to get a peep through Ms. Jones' windows while she was changing her undies. Or you are imagining all this? I ask as I have lived in the U.S. in nine states ranging from Maine to California. I have lived in 8 countries ranging from the U.S. through most of the Far East and I can honestly say that I have never been accosted by a policeman without cause. -- cheers, John B.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 09:38 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: voting booths in republican areas |
| Message-ID | <mqi6i1$86k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #21996 |
"John B." <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> wrote in message news:9sknsa5jfv2a86ettmln1dqjsftj6mmjkd@4ax.com... > On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:21:18 -0400, "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> > wrote: > >>"John B." <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:287lsa9t06u23sbai8j9mbktm1rn5d6lah@4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 09:57:39 -0400, "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>"John B." <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:rbeisa141693c76cb4mc9c6e41mqhag5o7@4ax.com... >>>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 00:21:08 +0200, Axel Berger >>>>> <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>The Real Bev wrote: >>>>>>> But if a cop really wants to know who you are and you >>>>>>> can't produce some sort of acceptable explanation/paper, he can >>>>>>> make >>>>>>> life a living hell for you. >>>>>> >>>>>>And you really believe than in America you can tell police your >>>>>>name >>>>>>is >>>>>>Mickey Mouse and they'll just accept that and let you go? That's >>>>>>where >>>>>>ID really makes life much easier for us and far less hassle. >>>>>> >>>>>>Axel >>>>> >>>>> I was under the impression that you must advise the police of your >>>>> identification so googled it and find that some 25 states have a >>>>> law >>>>> that says they you must identify yourself if asked and the U.S. >>>>> Supreme Court has ruled that the law is permissible if a state >>>>> implements it. >>>> >>>>This is not so clear-cut. There are only four states that have a >>>>law >>>>that mandates that you must identify yourself when asked to by a law >>>>enforcement officer for any reason or no reason. In the other >>>>states, >>>>a >>>>police officer can ask for ID at anytime but you are under no >>>>obligation >>>>to provide it unless you are being detained and to be detained an >>>>officer must suspect you of committing a crime or that you are about >>>>to >>>>commit a crime. If you are detained for any other reason, that >>>>itself >>>>is illegal. Police do have ways, as we know, of making life >>>>difficult >>>>when you don't oblige to their demand even if they are unlawful >>>>demands. >>>>You have to make a choice whether to stand up for your rights or >>>>allow >>>>them to be violated. Having a camera to record the "event" helps. >>>>Still, there are cases where even that doesn't change things and >>>>police >>>>blatantly violate one's rights. It seems that there are only very >>>>few >>>>instances where an officer who does that ever suffers any >>>>consequences >>>>of it. The system of police departments investigating themselves >>>>when >>>>an officer is suspected of wrongdoing is problematic in itself. >>> >>> But in reality why should one care if someone asks their name? >>> Businessmen almost always hand out name cards showing their name and >>> telephone numbers and usually an address any time that they get >>> close >>> to anyone. The much vilified police all wear a badge with their >>> serial >>> number on it, the military all wear "name tags" on their uniforms, >>> mechanics usually wear a shirt with their name embroidered over the >>> pocket, in athletic events the participants all wear numbers for >>> identification, gee... even a prisoner of war is required to give >>> his >>> name, rank and serial number. >> >>If I am going about my business, doing nothing wrong and a police >>officer walks up to me and wants my ID then I would certainly object >>to >>it. We all have a right to go about our business without being >>harassed. I don't ascribe to the notion that if I have "nothing to >>hide" then I shouldn't worry. I have nothing to hide but should I >>just >>allow police officers into my home to search it? No. > > Seriously? You are walking down the street, in broad daylight, > clapping your hands and singing a happy song, and a policeman leaps > out of a hidden doorway and demands your name? > > Really truly? > > Or your were skulking in the shadows trying to get a peep through Ms. > Jones' windows while she was changing her undies. > > Or you are imagining all this? > > I ask as I have lived in the U.S. in nine states ranging from Maine to > California. I have lived in 8 countries ranging from the U.S. through > most of the Far East and I can honestly say that I have never been > accosted by a policeman without cause. Where in my post did I say that I was accosted by a police officer who leaped out of a hidden doorway while I walked along clapping and singing? That is a gross exaggeration. What I have stated is that we are seeing our rights being eroded. Maybe you think it's OK to be questioned by a police officer when you are engaging in a perfectly legal activity, I don't. They should spend their time more productively by dealing with people who are engaging in illegal activity, wouldn't you think? I have a right to be left alone as long as I am not doing anything illegal. I should not be asked for ID, or questioned as to why I am doing what I am doing, where I came from, where I am going, etc. Perhaps if it happened to you or you've witnessed it happening to others then you might feel otherwise. Most people won't be accosted by a police officer but for those who have, their lives can be made a living hell because of the power a police officer has, not to mention the court system where the job of a prosecuting attorney is to get convictions rather than get the truth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 17:14 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: voting booths in republican areas |
| Message-ID | <55CCB439.93806FF5@B.Maus.De> |
| In reply to | #22005 |
PAS wrote: > They should spend their time more productively > by dealing with people who are engaging in illegal activity, > wouldn't you think? Well criminals are trying their level best to look as innocent as you probably are. For my taste police ask far too few questions, not too many. People loitering in a rsidential area where they don't live and don't have acquaintences may just be architecture buffs, more often than not they're more probably scouting places to burgle. > Most people won't be accosted by a > police officer but for those who have, their lives can be made > a living hell Well I have been, many times. And in all of them, even those where I was in the wrong over a minor traffic offense, they did their utmost to make it as painless and the least unpleasant they could. I do accuse them of preferring to accost polite and well behaved people like my octagenerian mother and look away from rude and aggressive louts, but then that's only human and I wouldn't like to swap jobs with them. Axel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 11:42 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: voting booths in republican areas |
| Message-ID | <mqidpn$4lr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #22009 |
"Axel Berger" <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> wrote in message news:55CCB439.93806FF5@B.Maus.De... > PAS wrote: >> They should spend their time more productively >> by dealing with people who are engaging in illegal activity, >> wouldn't you think? > > Well criminals are trying their level best to look as innocent as you > probably are. For my taste police ask far too few questions, not too > many. People loitering in a rsidential area where they don't live and > don't have acquaintences may just be architecture buffs, more often > than > not they're more probably scouting places to burgle. > >> Most people won't be accosted by a >> police officer but for those who have, their lives can be made >> a living hell > > Well I have been, many times. And in all of them, even those where I > was > in the wrong over a minor traffic offense, they did their utmost to > make > it as painless and the least unpleasant they could. I do accuse them > of > preferring to accost polite and well behaved people like my > octagenerian > mother and look away from rude and aggressive louts, but then that's > only human and I wouldn't like to swap jobs with them. For some reason your post brought something else to mind that happened to me about 30 years ago: I was visiting a friend at the liquor store he owned shortly before it was time to close. The police will routinely test the stores by sending in a person who is not old enough to buy alcohol (which is 21 years old here in New York and most places) but does appear to be old enough. IT was my friend's turn that night to be tested. Two plainclothes detectives will drive up to where the store is with the underage person. The underage person will go into the store and the police detectives remain in their car. If the person is able to buy the alcohol, then the police will enter the store and the trouble begins - rightfully so. However, the underage person is not allowed to pretend in any way that he or she is old enough to buy alcohol. They cannot provide ID that they are old enough because their ID has their proper age on it. But the store owner can ask the person "are you old enough to purchase alcohol" and the underage person is not permitted to lie because if he or she does, then any arrest or fine to the store owner if he sells to that person is invalid. Well, my friend asked the fellow that question and the guy said he was 21. Well, he wasn't and then the police came into the store. I was just there visiting me friend. One officer took my friend into the back of the store and the other stayed up front with me and told me I was under arrest for selling alcohol to a minor! I told him that I don't work there but he didn't care because I was in the store and they could arrest me. The other officer came back up front and took the one with me aside and had a quick conversation. He then left the store and went to the car and returned and was holding a box of folders and papers in front of him. I noticed that there was something bulging under the officer's shirt - he had a microphone under there (a "wire" as we call it). He went into the back again and then the officer with me said, and these are his exact words, "your friend is trying to keep you out of trouble. If you offered my partner a few hundred dollars, this can all go away". What he was doing was trying to get me to offer a bribe which would be recorded and then they could get me on a bribery charge. I looked at him and told him he was an idiot if he thought I would fall for that since I could see his partner had a wire on. Then he put handcuffs on me and got a little rough with me. What he did by trying to get me to offer a bribe is illegal - it's called "entrapment". But he obviously didn't care since he had no grounds to arrest me in the first place. But now he was going to make my life difficult and he tried his best to do it. I had to appear in court with an attorney and that cost me a lot of time and money. The judge threw the case out as he knew it was phony from the start. This is how some police officers act - they bully people around simply because they can. Honestly, is this "serving" the public or are they trying to be our masters? These kinds of police officers, IMO, belong in jail themselves for what the do to people. Instead, they get fat salaries of over $200,000 a year if they are detectives like these guys are and then they retire and get pensions almost as high as their salaries.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Axel Berger <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 18:47 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: voting booths in republican areas |
| Message-ID | <55CCCA27.F9D23E3@B.Maus.De> |
| In reply to | #22010 |
PAS wrote: > brought something else to mind that happened > to me about 30 years ago: Now if that story proves anything - and I have no doubt whatsoever that it hpaaened as told - then it's this: If you rightfully insist on citizens' rights and want to prevent or reverse a police state, then personal ID is the least of your worries. Here ID is routinely asked for and shown for cigarettes and alcohol. In a shop here I saw the young girl serving - and she looked about 15 and not the least bit tough - refuse to serve an 18-year old who had proved his age, telling him she'd seen him with the group of youngsters outside who had sent him in as the oldest. Good for her! and good for the shopkeeper because she could only do it knowing he'd back his staff to the hilt in this. Axel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-13 14:22 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: voting booths in republican areas |
| Message-ID | <mqin56$doo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #22011 |
"Axel Berger" <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> wrote in message news:55CCCA27.F9D23E3@B.Maus.De... > PAS wrote: >> brought something else to mind that happened >> to me about 30 years ago: > > Now if that story proves anything - and I have no doubt whatsoever > that > it hpaaened as told - then it's this: > If you rightfully insist on citizens' rights and want to prevent or > reverse a police state, then personal ID is the least of your worries. For every inch you give, they take a mile. If we give in to providing ID just because an officer asks for it even when there is no law compelling one to provide it, it will not end with that. Slowly but surely, our rights are being eroded and many people are just being conditioned to accept it. We are the frogs that are put into a pot of cool water that is slowly heated until it boils us to death. > Here ID is routinely asked for and shown for cigarettes and alcohol. > In > a shop here I saw the young girl serving - and she looked about 15 and > not the least bit tough - refuse to serve an 18-year old who had > proved > his age, telling him she'd seen him with the group of youngsters > outside > who had sent him in as the oldest. Good for her! and good for the > shopkeeper because she could only do it knowing he'd back his staff to > the hilt in this. That's very responsible behavior on that young lady's part. In New York, the legal drinking age used to be 18 but that was raised to 19 around 1984 and then raised to 21 a couple of years later. It's common to find underage kids asking older people to buy beer for them in a convenience store. Only "Liquor stores" can sell anything stronger than beer and the wines that are low-alcohol content. I'm 5 and not too many years ago I was asked by a teenager to buy some beer for him. I couldn't believe it and I ripped into him for asking me and let the workers in the store know to watch for anyone else doing it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John B. <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-14 07:00 +0700 |
| Subject | Re: voting booths in republican areas |
| Message-ID | <92bqsaphbqkflb7ggt9hf386bacr7imhdn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #22010 |
On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 11:42:18 -0400, "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote: >"Axel Berger" <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> wrote in message >news:55CCB439.93806FF5@B.Maus.De... >> PAS wrote: >>> They should spend their time more productively >>> by dealing with people who are engaging in illegal activity, >>> wouldn't you think? >> >> Well criminals are trying their level best to look as innocent as you >> probably are. For my taste police ask far too few questions, not too >> many. People loitering in a rsidential area where they don't live and >> don't have acquaintences may just be architecture buffs, more often >> than >> not they're more probably scouting places to burgle. >> >>> Most people won't be accosted by a >>> police officer but for those who have, their lives can be made >>> a living hell >> >> Well I have been, many times. And in all of them, even those where I >> was >> in the wrong over a minor traffic offense, they did their utmost to >> make >> it as painless and the least unpleasant they could. I do accuse them >> of >> preferring to accost polite and well behaved people like my >> octagenerian >> mother and look away from rude and aggressive louts, but then that's >> only human and I wouldn't like to swap jobs with them. > >For some reason your post brought something else to mind that happened >to me about 30 years ago: > >I was visiting a friend at the liquor store he owned shortly before it >was time to close. The police will routinely test the stores by sending >in a person who is not old enough to buy alcohol (which is 21 years old >here in New York and most places) but does appear to be old enough. IT >was my friend's turn that night to be tested. Two plainclothes >detectives will drive up to where the store is with the underage person. >The underage person will go into the store and the police detectives >remain in their car. If the person is able to buy the alcohol, then the >police will enter the store and the trouble begins - rightfully so. >However, the underage person is not allowed to pretend in any way that >he or she is old enough to buy alcohol. They cannot provide ID that >they are old enough because their ID has their proper age on it. But >the store owner can ask the person "are you old enough to purchase >alcohol" and the underage person is not permitted to lie because if he >or she does, then any arrest or fine to the store owner if he sells to >that person is invalid. Well, my friend asked the fellow that question >and the guy said he was 21. Well, he wasn't and then the police came >into the store. I was just there visiting me friend. One officer took >my friend into the back of the store and the other stayed up front with >me and told me I was under arrest for selling alcohol to a minor! I >told him that I don't work there but he didn't care because I was in the >store and they could arrest me. The other officer came back up front >and took the one with me aside and had a quick conversation. He then >left the store and went to the car and returned and was holding a box of >folders and papers in front of him. I noticed that there was something >bulging under the officer's shirt - he had a microphone under there (a >"wire" as we call it). He went into the back again and then the officer >with me said, and these are his exact words, "your friend is trying to >keep you out of trouble. If you offered my partner a few hundred >dollars, this can all go away". What he was doing was trying to get me >to offer a bribe which would be recorded and then they could get me on a >bribery charge. I looked at him and told him he was an idiot if he >thought I would fall for that since I could see his partner had a wire >on. Then he put handcuffs on me and got a little rough with me. What >he did by trying to get me to offer a bribe is illegal - it's called >"entrapment". But he obviously didn't care since he had no grounds to >arrest me in the first place. But now he was going to make my life >difficult and he tried his best to do it. I had to appear in court with >an attorney and that cost me a lot of time and money. The judge threw >the case out as he knew it was phony from the start. This is how some >police officers act - they bully people around simply because they can. >Honestly, is this "serving" the public or are they trying to be our >masters? These kinds of police officers, IMO, belong in jail themselves >for what the do to people. Instead, they get fat salaries of over >$200,000 a year if they are detectives like these guys are and then they >retire and get pensions almost as high as their salaries. > Again I have to say your story sounds like "Bull Shit". Perhaps not in your area but in many there is a term "carded" meaning that one was asked for a drivers licence or other proof of being of a legal age to buy alcoholic beverages. But you say your friend sold alcoholic beverages to a bloke solely on his statement "I'm 21". Frankly I can't believe that the proprietor of a store selling alcohol beverages would be so stupid to do such a thing so I can only assume that you either don't know what you are talking about or are lying. By the way, in legal terms "arrest" is a very specific term and determines, among other things, how the law office must treat you. For example, if you are legally arrested you must be advised of your rights under the Miranda ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court. Be "Mirandize" in other words. If not nothing that you say can be used as evidence against you. Again I have to say that your knowledge of U.S. criminal law seems extremely weak, or non existent. -- cheers, John B.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-14 11:34 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: voting booths in republican areas |
| Message-ID | <mql1n1$6pc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #22017 |
"John B." <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> wrote in message news:92bqsaphbqkflb7ggt9hf386bacr7imhdn@4ax.com... > On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 11:42:18 -0400, "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> > wrote: > >>"Axel Berger" <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> wrote in message >>news:55CCB439.93806FF5@B.Maus.De... >>> PAS wrote: >>>> They should spend their time more productively >>>> by dealing with people who are engaging in illegal activity, >>>> wouldn't you think? >>> >>> Well criminals are trying their level best to look as innocent as >>> you >>> probably are. For my taste police ask far too few questions, not too >>> many. People loitering in a rsidential area where they don't live >>> and >>> don't have acquaintences may just be architecture buffs, more often >>> than >>> not they're more probably scouting places to burgle. >>> >>>> Most people won't be accosted by a >>>> police officer but for those who have, their lives can be made >>>> a living hell >>> >>> Well I have been, many times. And in all of them, even those where I >>> was >>> in the wrong over a minor traffic offense, they did their utmost to >>> make >>> it as painless and the least unpleasant they could. I do accuse them >>> of >>> preferring to accost polite and well behaved people like my >>> octagenerian >>> mother and look away from rude and aggressive louts, but then that's >>> only human and I wouldn't like to swap jobs with them. >> >>For some reason your post brought something else to mind that happened >>to me about 30 years ago: >> >>I was visiting a friend at the liquor store he owned shortly before it >>was time to close. The police will routinely test the stores by >>sending >>in a person who is not old enough to buy alcohol (which is 21 years >>old >>here in New York and most places) but does appear to be old enough. >>IT >>was my friend's turn that night to be tested. Two plainclothes >>detectives will drive up to where the store is with the underage >>person. >>The underage person will go into the store and the police detectives >>remain in their car. If the person is able to buy the alcohol, then >>the >>police will enter the store and the trouble begins - rightfully so. >>However, the underage person is not allowed to pretend in any way that >>he or she is old enough to buy alcohol. They cannot provide ID that >>they are old enough because their ID has their proper age on it. But >>the store owner can ask the person "are you old enough to purchase >>alcohol" and the underage person is not permitted to lie because if he >>or she does, then any arrest or fine to the store owner if he sells to >>that person is invalid. Well, my friend asked the fellow that >>question >>and the guy said he was 21. Well, he wasn't and then the police came >>into the store. I was just there visiting me friend. One officer >>took >>my friend into the back of the store and the other stayed up front >>with >>me and told me I was under arrest for selling alcohol to a minor! I >>told him that I don't work there but he didn't care because I was in >>the >>store and they could arrest me. The other officer came back up front >>and took the one with me aside and had a quick conversation. He then >>left the store and went to the car and returned and was holding a box >>of >>folders and papers in front of him. I noticed that there was >>something >>bulging under the officer's shirt - he had a microphone under there (a >>"wire" as we call it). He went into the back again and then the >>officer >>with me said, and these are his exact words, "your friend is trying to >>keep you out of trouble. If you offered my partner a few hundred >>dollars, this can all go away". What he was doing was trying to get >>me >>to offer a bribe which would be recorded and then they could get me on >>a >>bribery charge. I looked at him and told him he was an idiot if he >>thought I would fall for that since I could see his partner had a wire >>on. Then he put handcuffs on me and got a little rough with me. What >>he did by trying to get me to offer a bribe is illegal - it's called >>"entrapment". But he obviously didn't care since he had no grounds to >>arrest me in the first place. But now he was going to make my life >>difficult and he tried his best to do it. I had to appear in court >>with >>an attorney and that cost me a lot of time and money. The judge threw >>the case out as he knew it was phony from the start. This is how some >>police officers act - they bully people around simply because they >>can. >>Honestly, is this "serving" the public or are they trying to be our >>masters? These kinds of police officers, IMO, belong in jail >>themselves >>for what the do to people. Instead, they get fat salaries of over >>$200,000 a year if they are detectives like these guys are and then >>they >>retire and get pensions almost as high as their salaries. >> > > Again I have to say your story sounds like "Bull Shit". Since you are essentially calling me a liar then "our" conversation is over. Try to be more civil, especially when someone is acting civil towards you. > Perhaps not in > your area but in many there is a term "carded" meaning that one was > asked for a drivers licence or other proof of being of a legal age to > buy alcoholic beverages. But you say your friend sold alcoholic > beverages to a bloke solely on his statement "I'm 21". Frankly I can't > believe that the proprietor of a store selling alcohol beverages would > be so stupid to do such a thing so I can only assume that you either > don't know what you are talking about or are lying. > > By the way, in legal terms "arrest" is a very specific term and > determines, among other things, how the law office must treat you. For > example, if you are legally arrested you must be advised of your > rights under the Miranda ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court. Be > "Mirandize" in other words. If not nothing that you say can be used as > evidence against you. > > Again I have to say that your knowledge of U.S. criminal law seems > extremely weak, or non existent. > -- > cheers, > > John B. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John B. <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-15 06:53 +0700 |
| Subject | Re: voting booths in republican areas |
| Message-ID | <fdvssatrhkjp5ln3esdbp6ikuruurcrf7u@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #22034 |
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 11:34:29 -0400, "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote: >"John B." <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:92bqsaphbqkflb7ggt9hf386bacr7imhdn@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 11:42:18 -0400, "PAS" <ntotrr@optonline.net> >> wrote: >> >>>"Axel Berger" <Axel_Berger@B.Maus.De> wrote in message >>>news:55CCB439.93806FF5@B.Maus.De... >>>> PAS wrote: >>>>> They should spend their time more productively >>>>> by dealing with people who are engaging in illegal activity, >>>>> wouldn't you think? >>>> >>>> Well criminals are trying their level best to look as innocent as >>>> you >>>> probably are. For my taste police ask far too few questions, not too >>>> many. People loitering in a rsidential area where they don't live >>>> and >>>> don't have acquaintences may just be architecture buffs, more often >>>> than >>>> not they're more probably scouting places to burgle. >>>> >>>>> Most people won't be accosted by a >>>>> police officer but for those who have, their lives can be made >>>>> a living hell >>>> >>>> Well I have been, many times. And in all of them, even those where I >>>> was >>>> in the wrong over a minor traffic offense, they did their utmost to >>>> make >>>> it as painless and the least unpleasant they could. I do accuse them >>>> of >>>> preferring to accost polite and well behaved people like my >>>> octagenerian >>>> mother and look away from rude and aggressive louts, but then that's >>>> only human and I wouldn't like to swap jobs with them. >>> >>>For some reason your post brought something else to mind that happened >>>to me about 30 years ago: >>> >>>I was visiting a friend at the liquor store he owned shortly before it >>>was time to close. The police will routinely test the stores by >>>sending >>>in a person who is not old enough to buy alcohol (which is 21 years >>>old >>>here in New York and most places) but does appear to be old enough. >>>IT >>>was my friend's turn that night to be tested. Two plainclothes >>>detectives will drive up to where the store is with the underage >>>person. >>>The underage person will go into the store and the police detectives >>>remain in their car. If the person is able to buy the alcohol, then >>>the >>>police will enter the store and the trouble begins - rightfully so. >>>However, the underage person is not allowed to pretend in any way that >>>he or she is old enough to buy alcohol. They cannot provide ID that >>>they are old enough because their ID has their proper age on it. But >>>the store owner can ask the person "are you old enough to purchase >>>alcohol" and the underage person is not permitted to lie because if he >>>or she does, then any arrest or fine to the store owner if he sells to >>>that person is invalid. Well, my friend asked the fellow that >>>question >>>and the guy said he was 21. Well, he wasn't and then the police came >>>into the store. I was just there visiting me friend. One officer >>>took >>>my friend into the back of the store and the other stayed up front >>>with >>>me and told me I was under arrest for selling alcohol to a minor! I >>>told him that I don't work there but he didn't care because I was in >>>the >>>store and they could arrest me. The other officer came back up front >>>and took the one with me aside and had a quick conversation. He then >>>left the store and went to the car and returned and was holding a box >>>of >>>folders and papers in front of him. I noticed that there was >>>something >>>bulging under the officer's shirt - he had a microphone under there (a >>>"wire" as we call it). He went into the back again and then the >>>officer >>>with me said, and these are his exact words, "your friend is trying to >>>keep you out of trouble. If you offered my partner a few hundred >>>dollars, this can all go away". What he was doing was trying to get >>>me >>>to offer a bribe which would be recorded and then they could get me on >>>a >>>bribery charge. I looked at him and told him he was an idiot if he >>>thought I would fall for that since I could see his partner had a wire >>>on. Then he put handcuffs on me and got a little rough with me. What >>>he did by trying to get me to offer a bribe is illegal - it's called >>>"entrapment". But he obviously didn't care since he had no grounds to >>>arrest me in the first place. But now he was going to make my life >>>difficult and he tried his best to do it. I had to appear in court >>>with >>>an attorney and that cost me a lot of time and money. The judge threw >>>the case out as he knew it was phony from the start. This is how some >>>police officers act - they bully people around simply because they >>>can. >>>Honestly, is this "serving" the public or are they trying to be our >>>masters? These kinds of police officers, IMO, belong in jail >>>themselves >>>for what the do to people. Instead, they get fat salaries of over >>>$200,000 a year if they are detectives like these guys are and then >>>they >>>retire and get pensions almost as high as their salaries. >>> >> >> Again I have to say your story sounds like "Bull Shit". > >Since you are essentially calling me a liar then "our" conversation is >over. Try to be more civil, especially when someone is acting civil >towards you. > Well, yes I was. And I was trying to emphasis the fact. While I have no doubt at all that you were, in fact, lying I would agree that it was possibly due to what might be described as you rationalizing your actions. After all you, being a singularly intelligent and wonderful person, could not possible have been be wrong, thus the other bloke must have done it. >> Perhaps not in >> your area but in many there is a term "carded" meaning that one was >> asked for a drivers licence or other proof of being of a legal age to >> buy alcoholic beverages. But you say your friend sold alcoholic >> beverages to a bloke solely on his statement "I'm 21". Frankly I can't >> believe that the proprietor of a store selling alcohol beverages would >> be so stupid to do such a thing so I can only assume that you either >> don't know what you are talking about or are lying. >> >> By the way, in legal terms "arrest" is a very specific term and >> determines, among other things, how the law office must treat you. For >> example, if you are legally arrested you must be advised of your >> rights under the Miranda ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court. Be >> "Mirandize" in other words. If not nothing that you say can be used as >> evidence against you. >> >> Again I have to say that your knowledge of U.S. criminal law seems >> extremely weak, or non existent. >> -- >> cheers, >> >> John B. >> -- cheers, John B.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-15 14:13 +0000 |
| Subject | what's entrapment (was: voting booths in republican areas) |
| Message-ID | <0d936f97ed929bbdb0f5ac812eb35a27@remailer.paranoici.org> |
| In reply to | #22017 |
> Again I have to say that your knowledge of U.S. criminal law seems > extremely weak, or non existent. Can you be specific on that? To me it looks me like PAS is familiar with the concept of entrapment, while you seem to have no clue.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John B. <johnbslocomb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-16 11:20 +0700 |
| Subject | Re: what's entrapment (was: voting booths in republican areas) |
| Message-ID | <u830ta1mg9pu1312rkp6sivrdqeisu7r72@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #22047 |
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 14:13:57 +0000 (UTC), Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> wrote: >> Again I have to say that your knowledge of U.S. criminal law seems >> extremely weak, or non existent. > >Can you be specific on that? > >To me it looks me like PAS is familiar with the concept of entrapment, >while you seem to have no clue. Firstly he didn't supply a very logical or detailed explanation - as I read it he argued that although the sales person asked the guy if he was old enough to buy booze and the guy only said "yes" and that he was a wrong in that he didn't ask for proof of age and secondly that although he was only visiting the store he was accused of working there. In the first instance I was, when younger, occasionally asked whether I was "old enough" and in every instance had to prove it by showing evidence. Why in his case was it different? In his second instance, I have, on occasion been addressed as though I might be employed at a shop, usually "Err Sir. How much is this?" So what. Did the police formally arrest him? Haul him off to jail? Spend hours grilling him? He doesn't say. So the sales person broke the law, so he was mistaken for an employee, so what? -- cheers, John B.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web