74 votes

Cops Again Harass Ron Paul Supporter Ken Suitter-Hilarious Video

Stalwart Ron Paul supporter, friend of liberty and Daily Paul user Ken Suitter was stopped and harassed by cops, again while going about his peaceful business.

Fortunately, Ken had a camera in the car---never drive anywhere without one!

One of the best parts of this (which certainly made my morning except it caused me to spill perfectly good iced coffee I rely upon) was when Ken said "I don't answer questions" and the befuddled cop responded with "why don't you answer questions?"

A classic moment in citizen/cop interaction!

Of course, the problem with the cop gun slipping around like that was a good moment too :)

Ken is one of 2 Ron Paul caucusgoers arrested at the infamous St. Charles caucus.

Each faces arraignment later this month.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

in what was this related to RP

The title makes it seem that harassment was the result of supporting Ron Paul rather that speeding...

no, perhaps a tiny mind draws that conclusion

Or someone bent on making accusations for no purpose.

Ken Suitter was one of the people arrested at the St. Charles caucus---and by any standard that is related to RP.

In no way does the title suggest that this particular citation (not arrest) and harassment was related to anything; one must read the post and view the video to understand the current citation and to verify the harassment.

The body of the post with the included video clearly explain.

Hey Ken

How'd you secure that camera to stay where it was.
Some special gadget?
Thanks for the reply and....THANKS again for being a true American Patriot!
You are tops!

" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~

Thanks For The Kind Words

I just prop it up against that frame that holds the windshield and hope I get everything in the picture. It covers a wide area so chances are good you'll get a good view.

The main thing is to make the cop aware he's being video taped. If they know they're on tape they're less likely to mess with you. It'll piss them off, but they HAVE to maintain a professional composure, of run the risk or getting fired. That's a good thing. I look at it as civil rights insurance.

Since I recently got a

Since I recently got a ticket, I will admit to some small bit of enjoyment I got with this video. I assume this fellow was unable to beat the ticket later, right?

Love those people


Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.



Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

Love it!

That was hilarious!The music is perfect!Make them work for it.I think this video is appropriate here for the slowyellowdog.

Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.

Good Job!!!!!

Awesome! Its funny how cops get when the shoe is on the other foot.

Let's Fight the Good Fight



Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts.
-Patrick Henry

Question for you:

You were breaking a law, so should we be encouraging your behavior or favoring the individual enforcing traffic laws?

Obviously there can be times when officers act way out of line, but was this really one? You actually probably shot yourself in the foot by being a dbag to the cop, because if I was him I'd max out that fine. I doubt any of us believe in there being no laws or no law enforcers, because if that was the case, those rights & liberties we all so deeply cherish could just as easily be taken, leaving you with no recourse.

Read the top of the page folks: "dedicated to restoring CONSTITUTIONAL government", not "NO government." If we allowed people to drive as fast as they wanted, they would without a doubt take away the life of another. This isn't about being anti-government, we aren't working for anarchy here, we support constitutional government/law enforcement.

Also, this part of what you

Also, this part of what you wrote:

"If we allowed people to drive as fast as they wanted, they would without a doubt take away the life of another."

sounds a hell of a lot like:

If we allowed people to own guns, they would without a doubt take away the life of another.

Are there any other "preventative laws" you agree with?

Ron Paul believes heroin

Ron Paul believes heroin should be legal....so how do you think he feels about someone getting a "speeding ticket" for going 43 in a 40.


There is something factually different about these two scenarios:

1) A law regulating the speed at which a person can safely operate a deadly vehicle on public roadways
2) A law regulating what a person can do to his own body in the privacy of his home

you would?


What in your tiny little mind informs you that a cop has the power to levy fines?

Since for you it all revolves around the Constitution who has power?

People or politicians and bureaucrats?

And what law was broken?

A citation is a notice to appear.

There's been no determination of any law being broken.

Sometime, you should read the constitution.

You haven't.

Well seeing as how they work for state governments..

State governments have the power to levy fines, and last time I checked cops work for state governments.

Regardless, why are you zeroing in on the most minuscule part of that entire post?

What law was broken? Ohhh I don't know maybe a speeding law? You don't believe in those do you? FREEDOM FOR ALL LET US DRIVE 100 MPH!!! There wouldn't have been a notice to appear or a traffic stop if he wasn't breaking a law. And the cop clearly says why he pulled the guy over in the video.

Btw, I would pwn your ass on the subject of the Constitution. You don't believe in the Constitution, you believe in anarchy.

wrong again quickbrownfox

Cops work for local governments.

Cops don't levy fines. Courts do that.

Any brief introduction to the Constitution would have introduced you to the concept of separation of powers.

Legislatures write laws, courts interpret the laws the Executive enforces the law (and that's just the federal level).

Have you never heard of an unlawful stop or unlawful detention?

Cops do that, bad cops. Laws against those things protect us from bad cops AND from those who believe cops do no wrong, ie, people like you.

Blind obedience to authority is weak-knee stuff.

You are far, far too sorry to comprehend the Bill of Rights (you know, THAT part of the Constitution) ever to pwn anyone on anything having to do with liberty.

You, my friend, are an arrogant fool.

This is almost certainly a waste of my time but you're throwing sh*t out there and hoping people buy it soo..

Cops don't just work for local governments; there are local police departments and there are state police departments. Stop making sh*t up.

Cops determine what to charge you with (e.g. speeding & reckless driving v. just speeding; drunk in public & underage possession v. underage possession.) The fine you get depends on what they charge you for.

You have all sorts of concepts mixed up. You start out talking about how "cops work for local governments" and then shift over to "separation of powers" and say that is only at the federal level? Although you basically just contradicted yourself so I don't really need to embarrass you further, but here is some useful knowledge so you don't come off looking like a fool to the world again. Separation of powers technically applies to both state and federal government. The founders created a "federalist" system to ensure that neither state nor federal governments accumulated too much power. Ideally the system is supposed to allow both states to check the power of federal government and the federal government to check the power of the states. The system additionally adds a "separation of powers" aspect, where governments are divided into three branches (legislative, executive, judicial) at both state & federal levels, creating a system of checks and balances on each level of government.

Courts don't technically levy fines, they determine whether you are guilty/not guilty (criminal) or find for plaintiff/defendant (civil). Fines are determined by legislators, either specifically or recommended sentencing guidelines (varying by state). Law enforcement officials enforce the law (you got this one, good job!) and determine what the charge(s) is/are that you will be tried for at a hearing. If you rub a cop the wrong way, he can "throw the book at you." (Ever heard that saying?)

Legislatures are not the only ones who write/make laws. Legislation can pass both chambers, but still has to be "presented" to the Executive to be signed into law. Furthermore, executive agencies (e.g. EPA) and independent administrative agencies (e.g. SEC, FTC, FCC) are now able to make/enforce/interpret laws.

Go ahead and read my post again, because you obviously didn't read/understand it. Unlaw detention is obviously possible and happens, but not when you break a law. If you exceed the speed limit by even 1 mph, technically you are breaking a speed limit law. If you break a law, it isn't "unlawful" to pull you over while writing you a ticket & checking your background/record.

At the end you mention the Bill of Rights, while again, talking about the power of "local government cops." Not even wasting my time explaining this one...

go out on the limb a little more, no, a little more still...

I never said "only at the federal level".

And these are local cops, or do you see any state cops in the video?

Try and stay in the conversation here, on this planet.

Now, that would be easier if you were on the planet and if you weren't trying so hard to rewrite what you already have typed.

Cops DO NOT issue fines and if they go about throwing books anyone is within their rights of self-defense to chuck one back at 'em.

One never is considered to have broken a law when a cop issues a citation.

One must be tried and found guilty...or simply plead guilty before one is considered guilty.

"Innocent until proven guilty"---to use your phrase "ever hear that saying"?

Did you miss the part where

Did you miss the part where the officer said he "thought" the speed limit was 30 while the driver clearly believed it was 40?

Did you miss the part where..

He said "actually, I'm pretty sure it's 30" responding to the guy saying "I think it's 40?"

Slowdumrat, let me point something out to you

I'll say it in as few words as possible as to not confuse you.

I'm "pretty sure" could mean, I'm not certain.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.


You think that one up yourself, or did your family members help brainstorm!!!! So CLEVERRRRR!!!

It could.. but it doesn't. Put it into context wise guy. He said it after handing the guy a ticket for going 43/30 and the guy claimed it was 40. The "pretty sure" wasn't meant as "I'm not sure on this one"; he said it responding to this guy's smartas* remarks.

But I guess we'll have to see after his court date won't we? Hey, if the cop was just "pretty sure" what the speed was while he was shooting radar, maybe your buddy will get off!

I sure hope he does because it's pigs like the cop

and pigs like yourself that are destroying this nation.. Socialism and Fascism is on it's way out and I won't shed a tear when those that promote it get theirs.

And yes, I am very clever. :)

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Yup socialism and Facism is on the way out..



a nugget of truth here

Actually, I agree with a part of your sarcastic tirade. Most stop signs are redundant and unnecessary. I would prefer to see them replaced with "emphatic yield" signs, erected for the purpose of establishing right of way. Many a time I have rolled through a stop sign because it was obvious to me, a careful and rational cowardly driver, that passage was safe and clear -- a determination that could more easily easily be found without the obstructive effect of a post at the intersection.

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
West of 89
a novel of another america

You're right

Absolutely. Completely unnecessary. I think we should make a proposal to start a committee to determine where the most appropriate places are for stop/yield signs. Then, after we have finalized our suggested plan of action for stop sign placement, the people get to vote on it. And just to be safe, if two or more people feel that a stop sign was placed where a yield sign should actually be (or vice-versa) we will have to reconsider the entire proposal.

This is valuable time we are talking about. You & I could both definitely find a better use for the 45 seconds we will save during our morning commutes.

People who say "better safe than sorry" are giving up their liberty to not stop at stop signs when they don't think it is reasonably necessary and could save them a few seconds too easily.

Wow you flip from Socialist to Facists to Anarchist at the drop

of a cap (ALL).

I believe in the rule of law but what I don't believe in is the abuse and overreaching tyrannical movements made against the American people.

I don't know about you, but I'm not an anarchist. :)

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Well, actually you are.

You are supporting the argument that speed limit laws are a conspiracy/unnecessary and people are able to determine what the "reasonable" speed is themselves without harming anyone else.

A world where people just determine what they feel is "reasonably" lawful or unlawful with regards to operating a potentially deadly vehicle that could kill someone in an instant is a world of anarchy.