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.

You're making an assumtion that the cop was in the right.

You're also assuming that my dislike for the cop has to do with him being a cop in general.

People who make assumptions like that about me, I usually write off as morons and rarely do they ever let me down in future encounters too.

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

Nope, no assumptions actually..

Just based completely off of your own words/actions.

"I'm sure he was feeling charitable when he decided to step a few rungs lower than average to speak with you. Going back to the average would be an improvement." Sound familiar?

Or do you just go around throwing your support behind arguments/ideas that you don't agree with? I believe there's a term for someone like that...

Well actually you're wrong

You were actually making assumptions and actually that was my opinion of you and still is.

Also actually, I have proof that you're an idiot, I've spoken with you on many occasions. Nothing has changed actually.

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


And you're still dumb. Very dumb. And you think you're smart. Hahaahah it's hilarious


That's funny.. I was thinking the same thing of you.

I enjoy mocking you too, can't you tell? :)

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

I see you have only been a member

here for a very short while. I must say you either don't really care about freedom and law, or you haven't much bothered to learn yet. Your ignorance is appalling; here are just a few things I noticed right off:
1. Cops do not "max out" fines, fines are set by legislatures (or city council, or whoever WRITES the law).
2. Traffic laws are infractions, not crimes. They are merely a method of extracting revenue from people. Ken did not harm any person, or property. Maybe you should read about Sheriff Mack, who came to understand what the traffic laws are really about.
3. You have no idea what you are talking about when you assume that a cop is an officer of the law. State police, for example, are generally unconstitutional (and to say unconstitutional means AGAINST the supreme law of the state). The law enforcement power in most states resides in the sheriff of the county, and is delegated to his deputies.
4. You say "If we allowed people to drive as fast as they wanted, they would without a doubt take away the life of another." This is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read on this site. You are actually showing just what is wrong with the traffic laws. The standard used to be "reasonable and proper" speed for the conditions, but governments can only raise money if they set low "limits" and charge people. Beyond that, your idea that laws should be passed or enforced based on what some people hypothetically THINK could happen evinces extreme totalitarian thinking. For example, if we allowed you to have a knife, no doubt you would stab the first person you saw ... ergo, we ought to pass a law that says: if we see you with a knife, we ought to cite you for at least 120 frns.
5. You have no concept of RIGHTS and FREEDOM. Ken exercised his right to stay silent (5th amendment), and he had absolutely no obligation to do otherwise. Indeed, it is the cop who has sworn an oath to UPHOLD Ken's rights, so he is the one who looks like a complete ass to keep asking questions. He is supposed to RESPECT Ken.
6. Please read the Constitution of your state and the federal one too before you come to the conclusion that you know anything about them.
7. And oohhhh, I just got all sentimental when you intimated that everyone wants law enforcers to protect 'our' rights and liberties. Never met one who did that yet; been standing up for my own as long as I can remember, just like KEN. Usually, "law enforcers" are stomping all over my liberties, not defending them. Now that I think about it, maybe I wasn't feeling sentimental, just sick to my stomach.

Typical "been here for a very short while" post

1. I don't know if you've noticed, but cops can generally charge you with whatever they want. It's their word over yours and what they charge you with typically determines what fine you have to pay.

2 & 4. Merely an "infraction?" Oh ok, so there is a speed limit law posted, you break that law, but the term is called an "infraction" so it isn't considered breaking a law. Nice logic, you should take the LSAT. Are you seriously trying to argue that traffic laws are a conspiracy? So you'd be alright with people determining what the "reasonable speed" is & having no speed limits or officers monitoring speeds on highways? Because in your world, I'd drive 100 mph at all times. The only reason I monitor my speed is because of the possibility of being pulled over. And I think I can drive 90-100 mph just fine and be "reasonable"; so that'd be ok in your perfect society right? All these jackasses driving 110 killing people.

3. Hey fool, go check who issues an officer's pay check and get back to me. It's always some part of the state/local government. You claiming that state police are "unconstitutional" is an absurd statement. If anything it is the MOST constitutional thing. Only the state has the police power, and technically it is 100% constitutional. "The law enforcement power resides in the sheriff, and is delegated to his deputies." Ok? So what's your point? Doesn't matter how they do it, state has the power to make laws & has the policing power to enforce them. The FEDERAL government is one of limited, enumerated powers and can assert powers specifically granted to them by the US Constitution. This is very different from what the Constitution says about the powers of STATE governments, who can basically do whatever they want unless it is expressly forbidden by the Constitution.

The most dramatic illustration of this state/federal difference is the POLICING POWER. Each state has a general police power (i.e. the ability to regulate solely on the basis of a regulation enhancing the welfare of their citizens). But there is NO general federal police power (i.e. no right for the federal government to regulate for the health, safety or genial welfare of the citizenry), and must fall within one of the very specific enumerated powers e.g. Commerce Clause.

5. No one said Ken didn't have the right to "stay silent" he obviously does, that's why the frustrated cop couldn't do anything about it. All I said was that he broke a law then proceeded to be an ahole about it.

6. Funny that you mention it, I have a Con Law final tomorrow that I am going to bend over and have my way with.

7. It's nice that you can "protect yourself"; seems fairly obvious you've never had to suffer through a close relative or friend being killed by a jackass driving too fast or too drunk. I hope you get hit by a drunk driver in an SUV going 140 mph later today, then maybe you'll learn to appreciate a traffic law or two.

Oh my

are you a law student? Studying currently? No wonder you have such a tenuous grasp of the history of law. I'll recommend Anderson on the Law of Sheriffs, to begin with. I recently have been reading some text books published by West, and so have some idea of the tremendously bad ideas increasingly taught in the field of law, (including the whole notion of the inherently sovereign "police powers" of the states, which is anathema to the idea of constitutional law, AND EACH STATE has a Constitution as well, you do know that? But no time to actually tackle that here today).

BTW, did you come to law study through being employed in law enforcement first?

I once asked a law student who had studied "Con Law" (apt name that, for your class! Good choice of words) what her professors had taught her about the restriction on the states with respect to not making anything but gold and silver a legal tender. She stared at me blankly. Guess they just don't cover some things, eh?

Now, reasonable people -- which we MUST assume is most people, (even you!)-- act in their own self interest. This is true in economics, which is why central economic planning always fails. It is also true with respect to driving vehicles. Since people have no desire to either hurt themselves or others (thereby incurring great pain to themselves in terms of having being injured themselves, or losing property, or having to pay compensation to others, going to jail, etc.), the vast majority of people drive at speeds at which they feel safe and can handle. Indeed, speed laws are often set as a percentage of the average speed used by people when no limit signs are in place.

Your hypothesis that without external speed limits no one would understand how to drive or would drive at dangerous speeds does not take into consideration this human element of self-interest. But it is what all freedom is based on -- the idea that people can handle responsibility, and you only punish them when they demonstrate that they will actually hurt others.

Indeed, your idea of people needing external laws* to control their behavior is exactly the concept that feeds all manner of totalitarianism, socialism, and fascism, NOT freedom and liberty, where people take responsibility for their own lives and actions. [*set by those who are just so much smarter than you, do you think? or are you one of those smart superior ones who should make the laws?]

You say: "I hope you get hit by a drunk driver in an SUV going 140 mph later today, then maybe you'll learn to appreciate a traffic law or two."
First, traffic laws NEVER ever stop people from harming other people. Drunk people still drive drunk, no matter how many laws are passed.
Second, just WOW. You really hope that? How mean-spirited; perhaps this response shows you to be one of those rare people who WOULD drive 110 mph just so you could kill people. But of course, then the cops would have every power and authority to arrest you and charge you, because YOU WOULD HAVE HARMED SOMEONE.

That was sad..

Can't get passed your first paragraph where you state you are reading "West textbooks" in an embarrassing attempt to pretend like you have some knowledge regarding the law and the history of the Constitution.

Sorry, not reading this. Go back to debating people with below-average intelligence, I'm varsity.

I'm sure he was feeling charitable

when he decided to step a few rungs lower than average to speak with you. Going back to the average would be an improvement.

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

Varsity huh?

Looks like, not only are you losing the Homecoming Game, but one of the AV boys just ripped your letter off your jacket and used the iron on tape to repair his glasses...all as he gets ready to drive off with your girl...in your car...flipping you the bird on the way out of the parking lot.

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



Hey, maybe the HC game is taking place in jwalsh's fantasyland where there are no laws.. maybe this will be the guy who gets hammered w/ my whorish ex and ends up crashing into jwalsh head on!

Jwalsh's world everyone is judged by the "subjective reasonable person" standard and everything is based on the honor system... So he and I better hope that our mysterious girlfriend stealer/drunk driver didn't think he was "reasonably unintoxicated" and "reasonably able to operate a vehicle" because then there will be no crime!

The fox

was owned and jwalsh nailed it home!
Ken was a GREAT example on not rolling over!
This person needs an edumacation in liberty! LOL
Now, sit boy, stay......

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


red pill

You must understand the past before you will understand the present.

1 America - Freedom to Fascism

2 The Obama Deception

3 Endgame

4 Zeitgeist


Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
My ฿itcoin: 17khsA7MvBJAGAPkhrFJdQZPYKgxAeXkBY

No laws broken that i could see.

It doesn't really matter what the officer saw, the law is determined in court. The officer merely issues a complaint, nothing more.

Ken, you have earned a biggest Mr.

I have never handled myself like this. You seem to have some seat time gaining this experience.

This was an education. Thank you.

This was very funny!

He even looks a bit like Clint Eastwood and has his attitude too!
Loved it!
Thanks for the post.
One very gutsy guy!
High fives my man!
Think I'll watch it one more time :-)

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

It was great, but what if the

It was great, but what if the cop had ordered him to get out of the car? He could not have disobeyed that, could he?

If the cop orders something, send his employer a bill.

If you are asked to do something in this situation, confirm "Is that an order?" Then you can send a bill to his employer. Cop never agreed on a price for his order.

Not really a "lawful"

order, though, is it? Do you really suppose the legislature has passed a law that says an officer can order any person out of their car for any reason? I would doubt it.

See, a "law enforcer" only gives a "lawful" order when he is actually enforcing a law written by the legislature.

mm..good..i see..

mm..good..i see..

LovE iT!

Freedom Fighters with Bravado = Sexy!

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

Hello John P.

..Two Questions:
Why was he being ticketed?...If it's current litigation,don't answer.
Who is the "Dude" at the end?

Ken was "detained" for quite some time, as evidenced that he had a
smoke between scenes.....I know that feeling.

Thanks for the post..and all the coverage from Ca & Texas you did.

Keep the soundtrack,loved it
or submit one from a Laurel & Hardy Movie LOL!

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

I don't know the "reason" for

I don't know the "reason" for the pull-over and "citation".

Ken just sent me the email this am with the link because he knows I'm amused by cop stuff.

I haven't asked him about that 2nd "dude".

That seemed odd. Obviously,plain clothes and from the way Ken wasn't surprised, I'm assuming the guy had been in his rearview mirror at least some of the time.

I think the guy was moving on the window when it briefly was down, for his big cop opportunity, but Ken had it rolled up in time and foiled the cop's big moment.

You Are Correct John

That other guy, by the way, was the Chief of Police in that town, believe it or not. That's who arrived when Barney called for back up.

I told you Andy doesn't like that

There you go slandering Barney again!

Goober DIED on the day you had this most recent close encounter of the cop kind.

Now is not the time for dragging long dead Barney through the mud of your obstinance.

A seatbelt scofflaw such as yourself should be more restrained...and how are we to knowwwwww you had it on while operating, eh?

It's bad enough you didn't salute your uniformed master, you failed even to plead with him, to fawn and beg a little...he's used to that, and it's really the only language he understands.

Rude, rude, very rude.


What happens if the officer "orders" him to roll down the window and he refuses and is then told to exit the car?

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

Ken simply was standing upon his rights

And refusing to bow to cops who are restricted in what they may do.

They have a reason to communicate, not to coerce one into seemingly welcoming a search/seizure of themselves and/or property.

Rolling down the window later will be presented as an "invite" to have oneself searched.

Some take orders from cops and some give them.

You're right to ask. A cop often will "order" and really, there's no one answer except try to avoid cops because as a collective, they all live and as individuals, most of them lie.

Well you don't know who yer talkin' to pal....

...cuz me?...Me? ...ME? I know ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL about the lying stuff! Ex-girlfriend was a cop...5 years of shift change party's and drunk gansta's all up in there gave me an ear full. Then there is my own personal interaction...outside of the debauchery fests...none of it good.

Thus....my question...;-)

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