19 votes

Typical Media Response to viral July 4th Checkpoint video




Comment viewing options

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

Truth be told, if it was

Truth be told, if it was black victim the media would be all against the cop. TRUTH!

David Raybin

The lawyer is a former assnt attorney general and assnt prosecuting attorney, and is now a top criminal defense attorney. And he makes a lot of money doing DUI defenses.

So who cares if DUI checkpoints are a violation of your Constitutional rights...make money and game the system, justice is a myth.

http://www.hollinslegal.com/attorney-profiles/david-raybin/

Check out http://ronpaulforums.com for activism and news.

Great example

of how the ruling class uses their mainstream media to brainwash the people into believing that acting like a submissive lemming is the "correct" way to live.

"If this mischievous financial policy [greenbacks], which has its origin in North America, should become endurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without debts. It will hav

Monopoly or Competition?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=B3no...

The Monopoly POWER always claims to be the only POWER.

Why is that not easy to see?

A "Legal Expert" offers legal advice in a way that sounds dictatorial (monopolistic or criminal).

Example:

"This is a textbook case of what not to do if you are stopped."

"This guy is immediately becoming confrontational and non-compliant with the officer for no reason. No apparent reason, so the officer is allowed to escalate this a little further."

Note the dictatorial message combined with ambiguity which can be understood as plausible deniability.

"This guy is..." <----- couched as fact, but is merely opinion.

"...a little further." <------ open ended, can mean anything, and is therefore plausibly deniable. "I meant a little not a lot."

Any question of law, in common law, is a process that is due to anyone, without exception, otherwise it is not a question of law, it is a question of who is more powerful when exceptions are made, when someone is overpowering someone else, and therefore the one being overpowered has the due process of law taken away from that person by the person who makes, creates, that exception.

Unwarranted, unprovoked, aggressive attack upon a targeted, innocent victim. There is a word for that, and the word is crime.

The link at the top of my response is titled: Secrets Police Don't Want You To Know.

Here is where it may be a good idea to stop calling the Criminals hiding behind false badges anything other than Criminals.

They confess, they are criminals, listen to them, they confess, they are criminals, why call them anything but criminals? Who benefits when criminals are effectively hiding behind false authority?

It is the criminals who don't want their victims knowing anything that may empower the victims to defend themselves against the criminals who hide behind false badges.

The Monopoly (Criminal) "NEWS" reporters (false propagandists, or high paid liars for Legal Crime) also don't want the victims knowing the secrets that empower the targeted victims, but those same high paid liars offer words from the person who made the video so as to defend against the criminals who hide behind false badges.

These words:

"The video was not made to be disrespectful of law enforcement at all. There are plenty of great cops in Tennessee who do not believe in going outside the law to take away constitutional freedoms."

A.
Defense against criminals hiding behind false badges. Any good cop wants the same thing, defense of the innocent against the criminals.

B.
Respect for honest people who do not try to hide the facts of law, nor invent lies that pose as law, which is fraud, which is a crime itself, and the inculpatory evidence of the crime of fraud is recorded by those high paid liars in that example of fraud called a News Broadcast. The criminal hiding behind the badge commits fraud too, as does the fraudulent "legal expert".

Their words and deeds constitute the evidence, the proof, of fraud, and that is by their own agreed upon laws.

Look here:

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=9...

That is another example of competitive networks of defense against criminals hiding behind false authority.

It is discovered, it is discoverable, that a challenge can be made to any claim of authority at any time, whereby the person challenging authority discovers the true colors of the person making a claim of authority.

If the person making the claim of authority confesses bias, prejudice, incompetence concerning the actual laws, then that bias, prejudice, and incompetence proves the fact of failure to be an authority.

What happens next, after proof of failure to actually be an authority, is determined by further exertions of will power, and the false authority has no legal authority, no more legal authority than any other person alive in this Country, once that person confesses bias, prejudice, and incompetence concerning actual laws.

Again:

A.
Defense against criminals hiding behind false badges. Shared by all good cops.

B.
Respect for honest people who do not try to hide the facts of law, nor invent lies that pose as law, as it is a shared goal offered by all who share the goal, to each other, to defend the innocent victims from attack by criminals, with, or without false badges.

Occasionally a criminal will counterfeit an actual badge, and the criminal will buy a counterfeit uniform, and the criminal will drive around in a counterfeit police car, and the criminal will pull over victims that the criminal targets, and the criminal will assault the victim on the side of the road.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdwvRZT6Ylk

There the legal expert says:

"If you ever feel unsafe, or in a position of not knowing exactly what's going on, ohm, just you know, pull over, maybe like you normally would, KEEP YOUR WINDOWS UP, your doors locked, call 911 right away."

Due process is founded upon the concept that anyone, anywhere, is as protected under the law as anyone else, without exception.

What does that mean?

In real terms, in real places, in real times, in the past, that meant that charges of having been a victim of a crime can be made, by anyone, against anyone else, and the accused is presumed to be innocent, by a jury of peers, randomly selected, to judge the case, the law, the evidence, and punishment, if any, and if all the members of the jury agree, beyond a reasonable doubt, then the presumed to be innocent person is legally found guilty by that process that is due to everyone, without exception.

Look here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6Hb0pW1eoE

Who has the legal power to assemble a jury based upon any claim by any person of having been a victim of a crime?

The "NEWS" experts willfully perpetrate fraud.

The "Legal Experts" offered by the "NEWS" experts willfully perpetrate fraud.

Call 911?

What happens when it is the 911 operators that have dispatched the criminals attacking you?

http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/war/page/w...

What happens if you are in court and the attack takes place?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytUl2Ie4E8Y

When there are no longer any competitive alternatives to being attacked, being victimized, by criminals, that is the point at which Crime made Legal, or Tyranny, is complete.

Monopoly.

Blind obedience.

Absolute Abject Belief in Falsehood Without Question.

Failure to submit to being victimized by criminals is a crime according to criminals.

That is a confession.

Joe

oops

they forgot to mention the part about the fake dog alert and the illegal search.

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
My ฿itcoin: 17khsA7MvBJAGAPkhrFJdQZPYKgxAeXkBY
http://www.dailypaul.com/303151/bitcoin-has-gone-on-an-insan...

Maybe if you actually roll

Maybe if you actually roll down your window the police wouldn't have suspicion of you trying to hide something.

I dunno

I think this comment was meant to be sarcastic?

Could have been...

I voted down too just to make sure. All of us need a reset to gain perspective from time to time :-)

2014 Liberty Candidate Thread: http://www.dailypaul.com/287246/2014-liberty-candidate-thread

2016 Potential Presidential Candidates: http://alturl.com/mt7tq

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

He should have submitted to authority

It's like people think the government doesn't own them or something. Smart folks know to do what they're told. If you're not in jail, you're free.

Maybe if you just let the cops in your house to see

Maybe if you just let the Nazi SS in your house to see if there are any jews you wouldn't have been shot for suspicion of jew sympathy...

see how that sounds...

Tools of war are not always obvious. The worst weapon is an idea planted in the mind of man. Prejudices can kill, suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has an everlasting fallout all of its own.

fireant's picture

Maybe if everybody just pulled off to the side of the road and

refused to proceed through these unconstitutional roadblocks, they'd get the message we are fed up with this crap.

Undo what Wilson did

Maybe people...

Maybe people feel safer out of the reach of the thugs that call themselves Police. Maybe after watching the infinite flow of videos of police breaking the law and abusing the citizens people have a right to feel afraid. Maybe the police have lost the respect of the people and are now seen as the thugs, bullies and criminals that they are. Maybe you should wake up and stop trying to cover for this gang of criminals.

RickStone

I'm not defending it, but in

I'm not defending it, but in the eyes of the law, it is probable cause if a pulled over person refuses to roll down his window (the police would think the driver is trying to hide his alcohol breath or weed smoke).

I think that ...

I think that it does not constitute probable cause but in the distorted view of the police it gives them reasonable suspicion. And that is an abusive stretch of the law. All the more reason not to not trust or respect the police because of their perpetual thug behavior. In this case it I believe it was about power, control and intimidation and not about law enforcement. He acted that way because he thought he could get away with it, but he didn't expect to be the star of a viral video. He got his 15 minuets of fame, I hope he gets fired for it.

RickStone

is anyone suprised by the media's reaction?

i'm not

They are the enemy and the best way to destroy them is to stop listening.

Tools of war are not always obvious. The worst weapon is an idea planted in the mind of man. Prejudices can kill, suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has an everlasting fallout all of its own.

fireant's picture

Idiot "legal expert" says you don't have same rights when

in a car. He must include "probable cause", because he seems to think presumed guilt when in a car is ok.
Yep, the media tools all accept that it's ok to stop us; they only discuss the proper behavior of those doing the stopping. Sad.

Undo what Wilson did

Correct

Including the officer never gave a reason when asked am I being detained. Never asked have you been drinking.
The news is controlled easily when they are uneducated dorks.

. . . . . . _ . . . _ _ .
. _ . . _ _ . . . . _ _ . . . . . . . _ . . _ . .
. _ . . _ _ . . . . _ _ . . . . . . . _ . . _ . .