# Police Stop, Handcuff Every Adult at Intersection in Search for Bank Robber



## Grower13 (Jun 5, 2012)

Police in Aurora, Colo., searching for suspected bank robbers stopped  every car at an intersection, handcuffed all the adults and searched  the cars, one of which they believed was carrying the suspect.
 Police said they had received what they called a reliable tip that  the culprit in an armed robbery at a Wells Fargo bank committed earlier  was stopped at the red light.
 We didnt have a description, didnt know race or gender or  anything, so a split-second decision was made to stop all the cars at  that intersection, and search for the armed robber, Aurora police  Officer Frank Fania told ABC News.
 Officers barricaded the area, halting 19 cars.
 Cops came in from every direction and just threw their car in front  of my car, Sonya Romero, one of the drivers who was handcuffed, told  ABC News affiliate KMGH-TV in Denver.
From there, the police went from car to car, removing the passengers and handcuffing the adults.
 Most of the adults were handcuffed, then were told what was going on  and were asked for permission to search the car, Fania said. They all  granted permission, and once nothing was found in their cars, they were  un-handcuffed.
 The search lasted between an hour and a half and two hours, and it  wasnt until the final car was searched that police apprehended the  suspect.
 Once officers got to his car, they found evidence that he was who  they were looking for, Fania said. When they searched the car, they  found two loaded firearms.
 The actions of the police have been met with some criticism, but  Fania said this was a unique situation that required an unusual  response.
 Its hard to say what normal is in a situation like this when you  havent dealt with a situation like this, Fania said. The result of  the whole ordeal is that it paid off. We have arrested and charged a  suspect.
 The other people who had been held at the intersection were allowed to leave once the suspect was apprehended.


----------



## Roddy (Jun 5, 2012)

Not good.....


----------



## 4u2sm0ke (Jun 5, 2012)

hmmmm...sounds like..." Guilty untill proven Inoscent".....I would contacting my Attorney..


----------



## Roddy (Jun 5, 2012)

yeah, illegal detention!


----------



## Menimeth (Jun 5, 2012)

Sometimes The end results justify the means, and it appears the tip the police recieved was right. I don't agree with the storm trooper attitude, but a person who will rob a bank, needs to be caught, even if it means a few people get handcuffed and searched until the culprit is apprehended. Don't get me wrong, I very seldom agree with police tactics, and would never talk to one for any reason, except to inform them that they should talk to my lawyer first, but anyone who will rob a bank, will kill innocent people to get away with it and that can not be allowed. JMHO


----------



## dman1234 (Jun 5, 2012)

Say they found 2 grams in your glove box???  what then? illeagal search and seizure??? but u gave permission for them to search, setting a bad precident here.


----------



## Roddy (Jun 5, 2012)

Menimeth said:
			
		

> Sometimes The end results justify the means, and it appears the tip the police recieved was right. I don't agree with the storm trooper attitude, but a person who will rob a bank, needs to be caught, even if it means a few people get handcuffed and searched until the culprit is apprehended. Don't get me wrong, I very seldom agree with police tactics, and would never talk to one for any reason, except to inform them that they should talk to my lawyer first, but anyone who will rob a bank, will kill innocent people to get away with it and that can not be allowed. JMHO




What if you were on your way to the hospital fro what may be the last visit with a dying loved one and were detained for an hour and a half...and missed saying good-bye? These people were all detained fro over an hour...


----------



## Menimeth (Jun 5, 2012)

I guess I would have to decide which I thought was more Important, me seeing my loved one for the last time, or other people maybe getting killed by a bank robber who could have been caught, but was not.


----------



## TheKlonedRanger (Jun 5, 2012)

Slippery slope. Justifying that nonsense because it worked is why we are seeing tougher police enforcement these days. They would have never searched my car with permission. I would have sat there for a freaking week making them wait. I miss the rights we used to have because people are okay with giving up their rights if a bad guy is occasionally caught.


----------



## Roddy (Jun 5, 2012)

They didn't even know what they were looking for...no skin color, no general description...just a hunch. Allowing this really starts a slippery slope.

TKR beat me to it, :yeahthat:


----------



## Grower13 (Jun 5, 2012)

They wouldn't have searched me or my car with my permission. Give the cops an inch next time they take a mile. This is/was a total infringement on ones rights.

remember....... never give permission for search for any reason and never talk to police.


----------



## pcduck (Jun 5, 2012)

I think you are pretty well screwed once you got in line.

If you had a loved one dying, you still are not going get through the line.

If you do not let them search your car and you are carry drugs they will just bring a dog in. The dog will show indicators and they will search your car anyways. ...Here where I live they can pull you over and if you show indicators they can search your car.

Maybe they were looking for some sacks of money with guns. IDK So maybe that is what they were looking for.

Sure it was an intrusion, was it right no. But I would think they must have had a really good tip and would have risked the repercussions in this _spilt-second _decision if it would not have worked out.jmho


----------



## Menimeth (Jun 5, 2012)

pcduck said:
			
		

> I think you are pretty well screwed once you got in line.
> 
> If you had a loved one dying, you still are not going get through the line.
> 
> ...


 
That is what I was saying, once you are there, unless you have something to hide, not allowing the police to search your ride will only result in you being detained longer, and even more of your rights being trampled on. I don't agree with it, but I do understand it, and stick by my origenal statement.


----------



## dman1234 (Jun 5, 2012)

but what if ya had something to hide?????


----------



## LEFTHAND (Jun 5, 2012)

dman1234 said:
			
		

> but what if ya had something to hide?????


 
*then your screwed LOL...
either goin to jail with whatever it is you are trying to hide.. 
run but chances are they would think YOU are the rober...
* 

*i agree with alot that has been said up n above... *
*what bothers me is what do you tell your kids...*
*do you tell them cops are bad.. do you tell them not to talk to cops...*

*ive noticed in my age that alot of "kids" n teenagers have "zero" to little respect for the law.. *
*and even violence has become an  issue from them towards the cops..*
*i dont agree with this..*

*i think if you have nothing to hide.. then there should be no reason to "hide"/not talk to the cops..*

*LH*


----------



## Amateur Grower (Jun 5, 2012)

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

*From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*

Original text of the Constitution

The Bill of Rights in the National Archives. 
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and seizure (including arrest) should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it. The Fourth Amendment applies to the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.


The authorities can do it but IF YOU HAVE A GOOD LAWYER, anything found should not stand.

AG


----------



## Amateur Grower (Jun 5, 2012)

pcduck said:
			
		

> I think you are pretty well screwed once you got in line.
> 
> *If you do not let them search your car* and you are carry drugs they will just bring a dog in. The dog will show indicators and they will search your car anyways. ...Here where I live they can pull you over and if you show indicators they can search your car.
> 
> Sure it was an intrusion, was it right no. But I would think they must have had a really good tip and would have risked the repercussions in this _spilt-second _decision if it would not have worked out.jmho


 
Duck, one of the only times I've ever disagreed with you. IMHO, you can NEVER consent to a search of your body or property. Once you say it's ok one time, your rights are pretty much gone. I say NEVER consent, NO MATTER WHAT.

AG


----------



## Roddy (Jun 5, 2012)

Amateur Grower said:
			
		

> Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
> 
> *From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*
> 
> ...



Imagine if the robber(s) skate due to illegal search.


----------



## Roddy (Jun 5, 2012)

*i think if you have nothing to hide.. then there should be no reason to "hide"/not talk to the cops..*

If only this were the truth....think about all the innocent people serving time, waiting on death row or already executed.

*ive noticed in my age that alot of "kids" n teenagers have "zero" to little respect for the law.. 
and even violence has become an issue from them towards the cops..
i dont agree with this..*

This is a toughie, but you need to realize the reputation the police have comes from their actions....and the actions reported in the news. It all boils down to perception and you rarely see anything good said about the police, only see news of brutality, bad cops or whatever. That's the fault of the police as well as the news, imho But I don't agree with it either.


----------



## Grower13 (Jun 5, 2012)

Roddy said:
			
		

> Imagine if the robber(s) skate due to illegal search.



It would be bad Roddy......... and millions of us would be on the cops side if they weren't after our weed to make felons of us just like the bank robbers.


----------



## Amateur Grower (Jun 5, 2012)

Grower13 said:
			
		

> It would be bad Roddy......... and millions of us would be on the cops side if they weren't after our weed to make felons of us just like the bank robbers.


 
True Dat!

AG


----------



## jonesfarm (Jun 7, 2012)

The authorities can do it but IF YOU HAVE A GOOD LAWYER, anything found should not stand.

 unfortunately you need a lot of good money to pay your good lawyer or they toss you to the wolves
 They came into my home and they had no warrant only some old lady up the street who was concerned because she hadn't seen me in a few weeks
 Destroyed my life


----------



## dman1234 (Jun 7, 2012)

one of the main points is the drivers gave consent to search, if ya hadd a couple grams and didnt rob a bank it could be a load of sh!t coming your way and at the same time violate your rights, but rights are relative depending on where ya live.


----------



## Menimeth (Jun 7, 2012)

Where I live, Unless everyone denis permision to search, (Which aint gonna happen) All refusel will get you, is seperated from everyone else, and a hard search of your ride. How you speak to the police will go a long way in deciding how they search you and your ride. Act afraid and you and your ride will get a full search, act mad and the same results apply, I have found that if you put the officer on the defensive with the way you speak to him, (Respectfully, but with athority) you will get treated far better, and a much less agressive search will follow. The police have a job to do in that situation, and the game is to keep them focused on what they are there for, and not devert their attention in your direction. JMHO


----------



## Amateur Grower (Jun 7, 2012)

Menimeth said:
			
		

> Where I live, Unless everyone denis permision to search, (Which aint gonna happen) All refusel will get you, is seperated from everyone else, and a hard search of your ride. How you speak to the police will go a long way in deciding how they search you and your ride. Act afraid and you and your ride will get a full search, act mad and the same results apply, I have found that if you put the officer on the defensive with the way you speak to him, (Respectfully, but with athority) you will get treated far better, and a much less agressive search will follow. The police have a job to do in that situation, and the game is to keep them focused on what they are there for, and not devert their attention in your direction. JMHO


 
The key here is do NOT consent to the search. I understand what you are saying Menimeth, but if you have pot in your possession, they are going to find it if they search you and/or your vehicle. If you do not consent to the search, and they do not have probable cause to search you (for instance if they are looking for a bank robber and you are not that robber), a good lawyer WILL get the search thrown out, and anything they find will also be thrown out. Once you say that it's ok if they search your body or vehicle, any and everything illicit they find CAN LEGALLY BE USED AGAINST YOU. 

Just don't consent to a search if you have contraband-it can NEVER turn out good. 

AG


----------



## Amateur Grower (Jun 7, 2012)

I've been thinking about this thread and the common misconception about law enforcement has reared it's ugly heat here again. 

For the record-I am a law-abiding citizen (except for the marijuana cultivation, of course! :hubba: ), pay my taxes and try to obey most of the laws of the land. I understand what the police force is there for and for the most part, I support them. BUT-don't EVER think they are on your side. They are there to ENFORCE THE LAWS. If they find you with pot-they aren't going to look the other way-they are officers of the law. 

For sure don't antagonize law enforcement-when I see people who get stopped and are spouting off about "I know my rights" and "You're just a pig", my first thought is "dude, you're an ****ole-you deserve to go to jail". But refusing to be searched and being an activist are very much different things. Say you don't have any pot on you and they're searching for these bank robbers and ask to search you and your car. You say ok, knowing that you're not breaking the law. In searching, they find a roach or maybe a pinch of pot someone dropped a while ago. Do you think it will matter at that point that they weren't searching for drugs? NO-you gave them permission to search your car!

We have to be aware of what our rights are as citizens of the greatest country in the world, the good ole' USA. Amendment Four of our US Constitution-*The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
*

Notice the part that says ..."and the persons or things to be seized."  If they are searching for a bank robber and you get stopped with pot, DO NOT consent to a search and any lawyer that is breathing will get the possession charges dismissed.  

Sorry to have gotten up on the stump-this is an issue that is very near and dear to me. Personally, I don't think marijuana should be illegal at all. Couple that with the way law enforcement treats simple pot possession and it's enough to make your blood boil.

DISCLAIMER-I have been arrested one time in my life-for possession of pot and paraphernalia. The charges were completely dismissed due to lack of probable cause. 

AG


----------



## Dan K. Liberty (Jun 7, 2012)

I'm with *AG* and *G13* all the way on this.  Make no mistake . . . police are being *trained *to violate your rights - if they can easily do so.  Calmly and politely stand up to them, and they probably won't risk it. 

If the cops are asking your *permission* to search, that means *they have no probable cause* - and they *know* they don't . . . cuz if they *did* have probable cause, they would have no *need* to ask your permission - they would simply state their probable cause and begin the search.

If you refuse to grant permission and they bring a dog, the dog is *searching* - and if there was no probable cause for the search, they are in violation of your civil rights under the Fourth Amendment.  There is legal precedence and case law to back this up.

Let them know that *YOU* know the law.  Immediately ask what they'd be looking for and what probable cause they have to suspect you.  Ask them not to violate your civil rights under the Fourth Amendment by searching without probable cause.  Tell them you've discussed this with your lawyer, and you really don't want to have to file a civil rights suit against the department.  Reiterate that you have nothing, then ask them to please just let you be on your way.

It's important to use those specific words:  "probable cause", "civil rights", "Fourth Amendment", and especially "*MY* LAWYER" !!

I have done this twice in the past five years, and both times they backed off and let me go.  I didn't have anything anyway, but that really doesn't matter.  It's the principle of the thing . . . they had no reason to search me, period.  Not sure about the bank robber deal . . .

The only way we retain and secure our rights is if we *assert* them.  If we don't assert them, then the cops will gladly violate them - and pretty soon we won't have any !!  So be very calm and very polite, but don't be intimidated - because that's exactly what they want.

jm2c :48:


----------



## benevolence6gc (Jun 8, 2012)

Robbed a bank? Sounds like a hero to me.
Banks have been robbing us since before we were born.
Cops have laws they must follow also, 4th amendment still mean anything?
Cops did ask each person to search the vehicle but I wonder what the response would have been if they had declined.


----------



## benevolence6gc (Jun 8, 2012)

Amateur Grower,
No one deserves to go to jail for free speech, no matter how obnoxious they can be.


----------



## Amateur Grower (Jun 8, 2012)

benevolence6gc said:
			
		

> Amateur Grower,
> No one deserves to go to jail for free speech, no matter how obnoxious they can be.


 
I'm not sure if I was just called obnoxious or not!?  

AG

Oh I see your point. I am just of the opinion that you catch more flies with honey but I understand what you are saying.


----------



## ston-loc (Jun 8, 2012)

Amateur Grower said:
			
		

> Say you don't have any pot on you and they're searching for these bank robbers and ask to search you and your car. You say ok, knowing that you're not breaking the law. In searching, they find a roach or maybe a pinch of pot someone dropped a while ago. Do you think it will matter at that point that they weren't searching for drugs? NO-you gave them permission to search your car!
> 
> AG



That doesn't happen around these parts. :rofl: Twice in the last couple years these stories happened.
Two of my buddies were driving and got pulled over. Cop smelled mj just standing next to the car. That friend is the guy hot boxing his ride all the time, and his car always wreaks. Cop asked them if either of them had MMJ, and neither did. Cop told them to spend the money and get MMJ. And to not be so obvious, and have a nice day.
Other time four of us were in the car, got pulled over. Cops asked right out of the gate how much MJ was in the car. Said his K9 went crazy as he was driving next to us :rofl: Told him I had about an eigth on me. He asked to see it, and if I had MMJ. 3 of the 4 of us did. He gave me back my mj, chuckled and sent us on our way.


----------



## Irish (Jun 9, 2012)

_i think_, weed is becoming more and more acceptable by non users, and even leo, and if they had found (a few grams) in your car while searching for a dangerous person, they would overlook that, and stick to the more important task at hand...(unless you are driving thru ohio)


----------



## Menimeth (Jun 9, 2012)

Amateur Grower said:
			
		

> The key here is do NOT consent to the search. I understand what you are saying Menimeth, but if you have pot in your possession, they are going to find it if they search you and/or your vehicle. If you do not consent to the search, and they do not have probable cause to search you (for instance if they are looking for a bank robber and you are not that robber), a good lawyer WILL get the search thrown out, and anything they find will also be thrown out. Once you say that it's ok if they search your body or vehicle, any and everything illicit they find CAN LEGALLY BE USED AGAINST YOU.
> 
> Just don't consent to a search if you have contraband-it can NEVER turn out good.
> 
> AG


 
My advice to you is, never come to Texas with that attitude or you may find yourself sitting in TDC without any idea how it happened. You assume that a lawyer can use the law to set you free, but in Texas the law is what the Judge says it is and if you don't believe me, come on down to Texas and find out.


----------



## Roddy (Jun 9, 2012)

Sorry Menimeth, but I just can't believe that and would think that, if this is true, people would assuredly get rid of the judges statewide for the obvious rights violations that must happen if this is the case.


----------



## Menimeth (Jun 9, 2012)

Except Judges have to step down, you can not vote them out of office. It takes an act of god almost to get rid of a Judge once they are there.


----------



## Dan K. Liberty (Jun 9, 2012)

Hey, you live where you wanna live.  I lived in San Antonio for a short time 25 years ago.  Coulda picked up a 1/4 oz of schwagazz roaches off the sidewalk down there.  Hated it.  Won't be coming back, ever.  Good advice.

Texas judges don't get to decide the Constitution.  If they're violating the Fourth Amendment, thats on them - and on the sheep that allow them to get away with it.  Rulings are overturned on appeal every day.  Like I said, you either stand up for your rights, or you lose them.

Now they're gonna start flying drones over us . . . anybody care ??


----------



## Roddy (Jun 9, 2012)

Menimeth said:
			
		

> Except Judges have to step down, you can not vote them out of office. It takes an act of god almost to get rid of a Judge once they are there.



Judges breaking the law can be dealt with, don't think differently.


----------



## Menimeth (Jun 9, 2012)

Roddy said:
			
		

> Judges breaking the law can be dealt with, don't think differently.


 
Who is gonna deal with it, the reality is that Judges break the law every day and there is very little you can do about it.


----------



## Roddy (Jun 9, 2012)

Think of what you're saying....I'll leave it at that. If you truly feel your rights don't count there, then do something about it. And if it's true that judges can't be elected in and out, then that's the fault of the voters.


----------



## ozzydiodude (Jun 9, 2012)

Judge break/misinterpret laws everyday in the US. If they did not then there would be no use of Appeal courts.  It's not the  fault of the voters if their forfather who wrote the laws that judges cant be elected in or out.


----------



## Dan K. Liberty (Jun 9, 2012)

. . . and people who are wrongly jailed because their civil rights have been violated sue - and win !!


----------



## Roddy (Jun 9, 2012)

ozzydiodude said:
			
		

> Judge break/misinterpret laws everyday in the US. If they did not then there would be no use of Appeal courts.  It's not the  fault of the voters if their forfather who wrote the laws that judges cant be elected in or out.



It truly is, get a law repealed. I'm not saying the voters are at fault for the law in place, they're at fault for LEAVING the law in place.


----------



## Dan K. Liberty (Jun 9, 2012)

it's not repealing a law, its appealing decisions that fly in the face of the Constitution !!   The only fault on the people is for not *asserting* their Constitutional rights !!  Judges who have too many cases overturned on appeal can be made to disappear, especially if their misguided rulings result in a few expensive judgements or settlements to the plaintiffs . . .


----------



## ozzydiodude (Jun 9, 2012)

The thing is that we do not vote on what laws are passed and what laws are not. Senators and Congressmen write the laws then judges interperet in their view of the law.


----------



## Dan K. Liberty (Jun 9, 2012)

ozzy, we're not talking about state laws here, we're talking about the US Constitution, which is immutable in every state in the country, unless two thirds of the US Congress votes to amend it !!


----------



## Roddy (Jun 9, 2012)

ozzydiodude said:
			
		

> The thing is that we do not vote on what laws are passed and what laws are not. Senators and Congressmen write the laws then judges interperet in their view of the law.



We had our MMJ law put on the books through voter initiative, which can be done with any law. You have to do some work (get signatures and such), but it is done and can be done.


----------



## Roddy (Jun 9, 2012)

Dan K. Liberty said:
			
		

> it's not repealing a law, its appealing decisions that fly in the face of the Constitution !!   The only fault on the people is for not *asserting* their Constitutional rights !!  Judges who have too many cases overturned on appeal can be made to disappear, especially if their misguided rulings result in a few expensive judgements or settlements to the plaintiffs . . .



If the law allows a judge to take peoples' rights from them, then the law needs repealed, it is about repealing the law and taking back your rights! This is a state law issue which should be dealt with...and is kind of apart from the actual topic on hand.


----------



## Dan K. Liberty (Jun 9, 2012)

If you do not understand and assert your rights under the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, then you are helping LEO to subvert it.  Just watch any episode of "Cops" . . . it's an epidemic that needs healing

No cop or judge in Texas, or anywhere else, is allowed to violate it without recourse


----------



## Dan K. Liberty (Jun 9, 2012)

hold on Roddy . . . there's no law in Texas, or anywhere else, that makes it *legal* for LEO to violate your rights under the Fourth Amendment.  Such a law, if passed somewhere, would be found "unconstitutional"

It is NOT a state law issue, it is a federal, CONSTITUTIONAL issue


----------



## Roddy (Jun 9, 2012)

Dan K. Liberty said:
			
		

> hold on Roddy . . . there's no law in Texas, or anywhere else, that makes it *legal* for LEO to violate your rights under the Fourth Amendment.  Such a law, if passed somewhere, would be found "unconstitutional"
> 
> It is NOT a state law issue, it is a federal, CONSTITUTIONAL issue



If the judges are able to break the law (deny your rights) without recourse of ability to remove them with election, that law allows the judge to break the law....imho, and needs repealed. That's what I'm saying here. Apparently, in Texas, such a law exists, and that IS a state issue.


----------



## Dan K. Liberty (Jun 9, 2012)

Sorry, Roddy - but there is NO law in Texas, or anywhere else in the US, which allows judges to subvert or disregard the Fourth Amendment.  There is no need to repeal any state law . . . people are just not standing up for their rights . . . this is *on* topic and *on *point !!  As we all well oughta know, federal law trumps any state law, and the Constitution trumps *everything* !!

If the judge issues rulings in violation of the Fourth Amendment, is subsequently challenged, and loses at the appellate level - that judge will either reconsider their "jurisprudence", or they will be *gone*.  Yes, many state/federal-level judges are *appointed* rather than elected, especially once you get beyond the circuit court level, but they *can* be forced out.  It has happened (and it might be happening in the Ninth Circuit *right now*).

*Nobody* can violate your Constitutional rights without recourse - unless you *fail to seek recourse !!*

Roddy, I know this is asking alot, but maybe you should consider reading *more* and posting* less *in cases where you don't know what you're talking about !!  As you've said, you're legal and not worried, so why don't you stop trying to give others legal advice ??  Thanks !!

jm2c :48:


----------



## Roddy (Jun 9, 2012)

Dan, please go back to post 33 and read forward, this explains what I am discussing. This post #35 *Except Judges have to step down, you can not vote them out of office. It takes an act of god almost to get rid of a Judge once they are there.* says the laws allow the judge to do what they please without worry of being voted out...

Or am I missing something?


----------



## Dan K. Liberty (Jun 9, 2012)

You are missing something . . . as you've said, you are legal and not worried, so please stop trying to give other people legal advice, bud !!!

You oughta start reading more and posting less


----------



## Dan K. Liberty (Jun 9, 2012)

I'm waiting here for you to open your yap again . .  :joint:


----------



## dman1234 (Jun 9, 2012)

No offence but I think your confused Dan, you are saying the same thing as Roddy.


----------



## Roddy (Jun 9, 2012)

Dan K. Liberty said:
			
		

> You are missing something . . . as you've said, you are legal and not worried, so please stop trying to give other people legal advice, bud !!!
> 
> You oughta start reading more and posting less



Not sure why so confrontational, this is a friendly convo....


----------



## Roddy (Jun 9, 2012)

Dan K. Liberty said:
			
		

> You are missing something . . . as you've said, you are legal and not worried, so please stop trying to give other people legal advice, bud !!!
> 
> You oughta start reading more and posting less



Can you explain what I've missed?


----------



## Dan K. Liberty (Jun 9, 2012)

Roddy said:
			
		

> If the law allows a judge to take peoples' rights from them, then the law needs repealed, it is about repealing the law and taking back your rights! This is a state law issue which should be dealt with...and is kind of apart from the actual topic on hand.


 
No, dman - he is soooooooooooo wrong, and on a different planet than me . . . he doesn't belong in this thread - as he is legal, and has no knowledge of which he portends to speak !!

much respect to you, though


----------



## Roddy (Jun 9, 2012)

Care to back any of your words or are you merely playing more games. I hope you can stop derailing and let this thread be as it is a friendly convo with great info for learning...by you as well as myself, apparently.


----------



## Roddy (Jun 9, 2012)

And sir, I'm waiting for backing of what you spout, until then, I will dismiss your posts from my concerns to reply.


----------



## Dan K. Liberty (Jun 9, 2012)

I'm not going to waste my time any longer.  It's not about any state or federal law that can be legally imposed on anyone or "repealed".  It's about the founding fathers of our nation, and the precepts that they believed in and documented in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

If you don't know them, love them and *assert* them, then you are contributing to the problem . . .

Like I said, I have been pulled over (by State Troopers on I77 in WV) twice in the past five years.  They said "mind if I take a look?" and I said "YES, I DO MIND.  WHAT WOULD YOU BE SEARCHING FOR?  WHY WOULD YOU HAVE REASONABLE CAUSE TO SUSPECT ME?"  

I was very calm and very polite.  I was not searched, and I went on my way. 

END OF TUTORIAL :ciao:


----------



## Roddy (Jun 9, 2012)

Menimeth, I stand by my comments! If your laws state the judges cannot be elected out (even for rights violations), you still have a way to get them out. Take up petitions, get it on the ballot and vote down that unjust and unconstitutional law. 

A person who is not worried about their job doesn't care, term limits are needed and should be in place from the smallest branch to the top of the legal tree. Stand up and be heard, make them accountable.


----------

