• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Simple freedom test-for legislators & LEO's

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,283
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP I never talk to a cop who "consensually encounters" me without my prior consent...like call me up and make a appointment.
(chuckle) That gives me an idea.

Cop: "C'mere. Do you know why I'm stopping you?"

Citizen: "I'm sorry, officer. Do you have an appointment with me?"

Cop: "Do I need an appointment?"

Citizen: "I'm sorry, officer. I know you're probably just doing your job. But, unless you made an appointment, this is not a consensual encounter. AmIfreetogo?"

Cop: "How was I supposed to make an appointment?"

Citizen: "Callmysecretary. Myattorneywillansweranyotherquestions. AmIfreetogo?"

:)

(Just joking. Don't nobody actually do that.)
 
Last edited:

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
(chuckle) That gives me an idea.

Cop: "C'mere. Do you know why I'm stopping you?"

Citizen: "I'm sorry, officer. Do you have an appointment with me?"

Cop: "Do I need an appointment?"

Citizen: "I'm sorry, officer. I know you're probably just doing your job. But, unless you made an appointment, this is not a consensual encounter. AmIfreetogo?"

Cop: "How was I supposed to make an appointment?"

Citizen: "Callmysecretary. Myattorneywillansweranyotherquestions. AmIfreetogo?"

:)

(Just joking. Don't nobody actually do that.)
Many a true word is spoken in jest

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." - Jefferson to James Madison, January 30, 1787
 
Last edited:

DCR

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2008
Messages
162
Location
, ,
You guys are great!

Good laughs & good points - I've really enjoyed reading everyone's takes on this. Feel free to keep 'em coming for as long as you care to think them up
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,283
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
...I'd support a statute presuming any contact initiated by an officer was nonconsensual because there would be less wiggle room for officers to approach OC'ers, or anyone for that matter, and claiming the PC that led to a search or arrest was generated from a consensual encounter.
Sorry, fellas. I'm a little rusty. I didn't think of this until just now.

Consensual encounters, as applied in the context of the 4A, are court-created nonsense, a distortion.

The general idea is that police can make contact and consensually engage a citizen just as a citizen can do to another citizen. The lie is that when police do it, in the context of the 4A, they are investigating somebody. When citizens engage one another consensually, it almost never involves investigation of an offense. While citizens could contact someone and engage them consensually to investigate some suspected offense (Hey? Did you just steal a trinket from that little old lady?), they generally don't, and for sure citizens cannot temporarily seize someone to investigate them further.

Take a moment to read or re-read Terry v Ohio. One of the court's lines is that it would be unreasonable to forbid a police officer to detain and investigate. The court covers up with slick language what they are about to do:

"It would have been poor police work indeed for an officer of 30 years' experience in the detection of thievery from stores in this same neighborhood to have failed to investigate this behavior further."



What the court omits to mention is that Detective McFadden wasn't just investigating; he actually seized Terry. And, with that sentence, "...poor police work...", the court summarily dispensed with your right to be secure in your person if a cop can successfully rationalize his suspicions later to a judge. According to the court, it is good police work to seize someone while investigating them further. Something citizens cannot do, not to merely investigate somebody.


...

A statute presuming a contact initiated by an office as non-consensual misses the mark a little bit, I think. Nearer would be a statute repudiating the courts' artifice, and requiring RAS to initiate a consensual contact for investigative purposes. While they're at it, they can also eliminate or dramatically restrict the good faith exception (literally the police equivalent of "close enough for government work"), and qualified immunity (based on the out-dated idea that the king is immune because he is sovereign). Not that I trust legislatures to do the right thing. Heck, they're willing to rule me whether I consent or not. Why on earth would I put one jot of trust in an individual who is so arrogant as to think he can legitimately rule me without my express, individual consent, much less a whole group of them collected into something called a legislature?
 
Last edited:

SovereigntyOrDeath

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2014
Messages
411
Location
Coeur D Alene, Idaho
A statute presuming a contact initiated by an office as non-consensual misses the mark a little bit, I think. Nearer would be a statute repudiating the courts' artifice, and requiring RAS to initiate a consensual contact for investigative purposes. While they're at it, they can also eliminate or dramatically restrict the good faith exception (literally the police equivalent of "close enough for government work"), and qualified immunity (based on the out-dated idea that the king is immune because he is sovereign). Not that I trust legislatures to do the right thing. Heck, they're willing to rule me whether I consent or not. Why on earth would I put one jot of trust in an individual who is so arrogant as to think he can legitimately rule me without my express, individual consent, much less a whole group of them collected into something called a legislature?
We are the sovereign now, or I should say, we are supposed to be the sovereign now.

Funny how the Obama administration thinks that a sovereign citizen is a threat to national security. We are in big trouble and it continues to get worst with the dumbing down of youth in this country.

All the government needs is another emergency to enslave us all. Patriot Act, NSA spying, all the way down to a cop pulling one over for not wearing a seat belt.

Tyranny comes in many forms.

Sovereign citizen is not an oxymoron.
 

DCR

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2008
Messages
162
Location
, ,
I like it!

A statute presuming a contact initiated by an office as non-consensual misses the mark a little bit, I think. Nearer would be a statute repudiating the courts' artifice, and requiring RAS to initiate a consensual contact for investigative purposes. While they're at it, they can also eliminate or dramatically restrict the good faith exception (literally the police equivalent of "close enough for government work"), and qualified immunity (based on the out-dated idea that the king is immune because he is sovereign). Not that I trust legislatures to do the right thing. Heck, they're willing to rule me whether I consent or not. Why on earth would I put one jot of trust in an individual who is so arrogant as to think he can legitimately rule me without my express, individual consent, much less a whole group of them collected into something called a legislature?
This addresses the issue better than my original thought. Oh, how the LEO lobby and state Prosecuting Attorneys Associations would howl! Almost as much as they would were a proposal to come forth placing any restriction on what is REASONABLE "officer safety," another source for overreach that has become a mantra for police academies, report-writing, prosecutorial briefs and judicial opinions.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,690
Location
Whatcom County
Sorry, fellas. I'm a little rusty. I didn't think of this until just now.

Consensual encounters, as applied in the context of the 4A, are court-created nonsense, a distortion.

The general idea is that police can make contact and consensually engage a citizen just as a citizen can do to another citizen. The lie is that when police do it, in the context of the 4A, they are investigating somebody. When citizens engage one another consensually, it almost never involves investigation of an offense. While citizens could contact someone and engage them consensually to investigate some suspected offense (Hey? Did you just steal a trinket from that little old lady?), they generally don't, and for sure citizens cannot temporarily seize someone to investigate them further.

Take a moment to read or re-read Terry v Ohio. One of the court's lines is that it would be unreasonable to forbid a police officer to detain and investigate. The court covers up with slick language what they are about to do:

"It would have been poor police work indeed for an officer of 30 years' experience in the detection of thievery from stores in this same neighborhood to have failed to investigate this behavior further."



What the court omits to mention is that Detective McFadden wasn't just investigating; he actually seized Terry. And, with that sentence, "...poor police work...", the court summarily dispensed with your right to be secure in your person if a cop can successfully rationalize his suspicions later to a judge. According to the court, it is good police work to seize someone while investigating them further. Something citizens cannot do, not to merely investigate somebody.


...

A statute presuming a contact initiated by an office as non-consensual misses the mark a little bit, I think. Nearer would be a statute repudiating the courts' artifice, and requiring RAS to initiate a consensual contact for investigative purposes. While they're at it, they can also eliminate or dramatically restrict the good faith exception (literally the police equivalent of "close enough for government work"), and qualified immunity (based on the out-dated idea that the king is immune because he is sovereign). Not that I trust legislatures to do the right thing. Heck, they're willing to rule me whether I consent or not. Why on earth would I put one jot of trust in an individual who is so arrogant as to think he can legitimately rule me without my express, individual consent, much less a whole group of them collected into something called a legislature?
Side note. While you were away (Glad to have you back brother!)

I brought up casual encounter, where some cops and cop apologist were trying to make consensual encounter as the same. You are right consensual encounter is a made up court term to cover up what we all know is nothing but what it implies.
 

Logan 5

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2012
Messages
663
Location
Utah
***?

Are you insulting LEO'S here?

Not allowed. Tisk, tisk, tisk.

Grapeshot anyone?
Nah, but I will take come grape juice though.
He really is insulting the porcine industry. Bad boy! Bad bad bad! ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
A cop asked me for my endorsement and ID. I handed him the documents as required under RSMo. I remained silent. The cop was getting frustrated that I refused to speak with him. He finally came out and demanded that I answer his questions.

I have this RSMo on a business sized card and handed him one.

After reading it he fell silent, handed me my documents and returned to his cruiser.

I never talk to a cop who "consensually encounters" me without my prior consent...like call me up and make a appointment.
I like this. Can you post a pic of this card (just white out any personal info)

When this occurred were you on foot, seated at a restaurant, in your car (still or moving), or what. I presume you were OC-ing and that's what initiated it.

TIA
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,324
Location
White Oak Plantation
A cop asked me for my endorsement and ID. I handed him the documents as required under RSMo. I remained silent. The cop was getting frustrated that I refused to speak with him. He finally came out and demanded that I answer his questions.

I have this RSMo on a business sized card and handed him one.

After reading it he fell silent, handed me my documents and returned to his cruiser.

I never talk to a cop who "consensually encounters" me without my prior consent...like call me up and make a appointment.
I searched the Interwebz for a cheap business card supplier. Called them up and asked how to get the RSMo on a business card. The RSMo is the only text on the card, about 10 buck for 500 these days is the going rate.I keep several of them in my shirt pocket along with the required papiere.

Ocing while gassing up my truck in a anti-liberty municipality.
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
I searched the Interwebz for a cheap business card supplier. Called them up and asked how to get the RSMo on a business card. The RSMo is the only text on the card, about 10 buck for 500 these days is the going rate.I keep several of them in my shirt pocket along with the required papiere.

Ocing while gassing up my truck in a anti-liberty municipality.
OK, I made the "mistake" of googling RSMo and clicked on images. Some red-blooded males here may see the firearm.

OTOH, I get it.

trade-secrets-and-computer-tampering-9-638.jpg

...but something in relation to OC-ing. (not from Mo)
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,324
Location
White Oak Plantation
OK, I made the "mistake" of googling RSMo and clicked on images. Some red-blooded males here may see the firearm.

OTOH, I get it.

View attachment 12428

...but something in relation to OC-ing. (not from Mo)
RSMo 544.180. Try googling this instead. Or, http://moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/54400001801.html?&me=544.180

I'm loath to mention a business card firm here, but, and no endorsement of, vistaprint (10 bucks for 500 cards is the only reason I used them) is but one firm out there. They claim "custom business cards" I put them to the test and they passed.
 
Top