GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-31-2012, 15:38   #61
VAPA-Rick
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 78
Thanks to the mods for moving this discussion to the proper forum.

Somebody asked me, "So the reason for the car is that you're afraid of being murdered by the cops?"

That's part of it. I'm worried that if unlawfully pulled over by a cop in the future, when I refuse to exit the vehicle to be handcuffed at the unlawful cop's leisure, that he will pull his weapon to demand I exit the vehicle.

Another person said, "Do you have more than 1 vehicle done up like this? It looks like the car in the BP checkpoint video has tan leather interior vs the black cloth interior in the eclipse."

No, that car was not armored back then. Just had some cheap cameras.

Somebody else said, "That's where thick skin comes into play. We razz people. Often. You can't say you never did any **** talking in the military or weren't exposed to it. Thick skin is always a plus."

I've got a thick skin and I'm game. But when those who raised their rights hands trumpet words and views that would make "Dear Leader" proud, then I'm going to respond. And I'm not razzing.

You ask about my military record and say that I may be a faker. At this point, I'm not going to go into details about my military service. It's not relevant to the issue of police abuse, or the right of a citizen to take measures to defend himself from those who break the law.

You also said, "If cops were intent on killing you, that car would not stop them in the least. I also feel safe assuming that if you used it's features to engage/resist LE, that it more than likely would not go well in court."

Noted. If LE has pulled me over unlawfully and I resist their armed attempts to use force to enter my car unlawfully, and I can prove the stop is unlawful, I feel pretty comfortable it will go fine in court. But you may be right, life is a gamble.

As to your comment on the smoke screen, as I made clear in the video, it's just a toy. As I made clear in the previous thread before it was locked, it's a gee-whiz feature designed to make my car interesting, so that they'll want to see it, so that I can show them technologies they can use to secure the truth of events.

Somebody else said, "I'm not impressed by your statement that you have filed two lawsuits. A suit can be filed for almost anything. Let me know the outcome after a ruling by a judge or jury."

You bet.

You also said, "I hope your crusade lets you feel better about yourself. Some people need a cause."

It's the cause I raised my right hand for, and swore I would take on, and get paid for. And it's just being a good ole-fashioned American.

Somebody else said, "I'm sure your lawyer (unless you represent yourself) wouldn't be happy about you going off like this about your cases on an internet forum."

What have I mentioned about my cases? I must have missed that.

Somebody else said, "Checkpoints are not a detention and don't require lawbreaking."

The SCOTUS disagrees with you, and has stated that checkpoints are a "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment.

Another responded to me, "I don't make unlawful stops, so that point's moot."

Good, then this whole discussion between us is moot. Don't unlawfully stop me, and my car is irrelevant.

As to your claim on assault, I disagree. If a cop unlawfully pulls me over, and then attempts to unlawfully enter my vehicle by force (with the footage secured that proves those two points), and I tell him I am electrifying my door handles and to not touch them, and he does anyway, that is not assault or battery.

As to Mimms, you are right the SCOTUS has said cops can order people out of their vehicles for their safety during lawful stops. You ask how will I know if it's a lawful stop or not. The answer is, I will ask the cop why he has pulled me over. He'll give an answer (and if he doesn't, I'm not exiting for my own safety, just like Mimms references). If his answer is correct, I'll be compliant. If his answer is provably false, I will not comply. If I don't know if his reason is correct or not, then he gets the benefit of the doubt, and I'll investigate further technology.

As to those wanting to know details of my lawsuit, I've already responded to that request.

As to the person who said, "You know exactly what you're doing... You're trying to assert your authority over theirs. Guess what you're probably going to lose that one."

They work for me, I am an American, I am the authority. They are vested with authority over me if I've done something unlawful, and I acknowledge that. But that's not the issue here, the discussion is about when I have done nothing unlawful, and they are acting unlawfully. In that situation, they have no authority.

To the person stating, "I've been thru several of the Border Patrol Checkpoints including the one you posted a video of. IIRC I was asked if I was a US Citizen ,I answered yes and I was on my way.
Took less than a minute."

Have you had a chance to tell Giffords that you went into a grocery store, and no deranged nut started shooting at you, and that you found the food selection to be splendid and the customer service to be wonderful?

Apples and oranges. Your experience has nothing to do with mine.

I'm glad to see that as this discussion has evolved, there are several reasonable individuals on this forum. I hope some of them are LEO.

There is little better than a professional public servant who takes his or her oath seriously, and truly serves and protects. Those of you earn your paychecks, and I hope you'll re-double your efforts to get your cohorts to measure up to the position.
VAPA-Rick is offline  
Old 07-31-2012, 15:43   #62
11A
Senior Member
 
11A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 247
Rick,
You fail to realize that its a losing argument, and especially in here. Officers know case law and legislative law very well because the safety of everyone, and our job, is at stake.

Are there some bad police officers? Yes. But, can you tell me that there aren't people who are bad at their jobs in other professions? I'm betting not.

Just having your smoke screen and sirens is illegal where I work. You might want to check your local laws before telling us you don't break them (refer to post #1 of your locked thread in GNG).

As for post #49 in your locked thread, we don't care about cameras because it doesn't violate any law or the 1st Amendment in any way. If you don't know, many of us carry microphones and are videotaped anyways. We don't care about concealed carry either as long as its done legally. What we do care about is people who do things specifically to stop us from doing our job.

As for post #67 in your locked thread, refer to Article 134 of the UCMJ because that it is the one that applies for obeying law enforcement. If you plan on using your electric handles at all, refer to Article 128 as well.

Also, where I work you do not have the option of not complying with orders during a traffic stop. If you think they are legal then you can take it up in court. Attempting to stop an "unlawful arrest" during the encounter is going to get you more charges.

You are taking it as if we don't like your car. Most of us could care less what you spend your money on. What we do care about is your intent on the equipment. Also, your quote from your video is very pointed and shows your true intent whether you meant it to or not:
"Ever have a negative interaction with someone who claims to "Serve and Protect" when behind the wheel?"

No one I have ever stopped has had a pleasant interaction with me when behind a wheel simply because I have stopped them for a violation. We don't deal with people in their "good times" because no one ever calls the cops because they are having a good day and getting stopped in their vehicles is unpleasant.

Also, you still haven't posted info on your military service. If you want mine, look at my user name.
11A is offline  
Old 07-31-2012, 15:44   #63
VAPA-Rick
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11A View Post
If he was part of the Officer corps, then I apologize on the behalf of all the other Officers that have have gotten out and done something productive.
And why is that?
VAPA-Rick is offline  
Old 07-31-2012, 15:46   #64
VAPA-Rick
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by DustyJacket View Post
I find myself embarrased if he really is a military officer (or even NCO).
And why is that exactly? Because you expect military officers and NCOs to not take steps to protect themselves and their families from those who break the law?

Not sure I can agree with you there. I think I'd rather have fighting men and women who value their oaths to the Constitution, and have the courage to challenge wrongdoing.

But to each his own.
VAPA-Rick is offline  
Old 07-31-2012, 15:47   #65
11A
Senior Member
 
11A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 247
Also, telling someone you are going to hurt them and then doing it is still assault. Doing it in self defense is an affirmative defense in court, but it is still assault.
11A is offline  
Old 07-31-2012, 15:50   #66
11A
Senior Member
 
11A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 247
Quote:
Originally Posted by VAPA-Rick View Post
And why is that?
Because anyone from the Officer Corps that purposely mentions the military and then goes on to explain how they are going to break the law degrades military; anyone who does so as an Officer or former Officer degrades the Officer Corps.

Resisting arrest is against the law, even if you believe it to be an unlawful arrest; at least it is in Ohio.
11A is offline  
Old 07-31-2012, 15:52   #67
lpo
what?!?!?!?!?
 
lpo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: mississippi
Posts: 1,426
Send a message via Yahoo to lpo
Is this the same Richard Rynearson who was a pilot in the Air Force? Possibly with a medal of Valor? If

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
__________________
"Stupid hurts" -- USMCsilver
lpo is online now  
Old 07-31-2012, 15:54   #68
VAPA-Rick
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewseph View Post
The worst part is that hes trying to create some kind of war between veterans and law enforcement...
Not at all. Good military folks and good cop folks, and all who swear to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, are on the same team.

For their country and the citizens who pay them, to defend them.
VAPA-Rick is offline  
Old 07-31-2012, 15:56   #69
VAPA-Rick
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
Apparently, SAPD abused his rights by arresting him, when he was stopped for failing to signal a lane change and he refused to cooperate or show a license or insurance.
So Bren, since you're such a sleuth, was that the allegation by me in what you saw? Or was there another description of what actually happened? Just wondering.
VAPA-Rick is offline  
Old 07-31-2012, 15:56   #70
TBO
CLM Number 122
Why so serious?
 
TBO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: NRA Life Member
Posts: 47,146
Blog Entries: 1


Rick,

Who decides what is unconstitutional?

Sent from my mind using Tapatalk 2
__________________
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

"If you have integrity, nothing else matters. If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters".

"A person who won't reason has no advantage over one who can't reason."

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

“Ignorance is a lot like alcohol: the more you have of it, the less you are able to see its effect on you.”


Originally Posted by Rooster Rugburn:
Didn't the whole sheepdog thing actually start right here on Glock Talk? A bunch of wannabees bought a bunch of T-shirts and took an oath to defend those who won't defend themselves?
TBO is offline  
Old 07-31-2012, 15:57   #71
VAPA-Rick
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11A View Post
Rick,
You fail to realize that its a losing argument, and especially in here.
11A,

Please list the "argument" that I'm making, that is a losing argument. I'd really like to hear you specify the argument I'm making, that you say is a loser. Thanks in advance.
VAPA-Rick is offline  
Old 07-31-2012, 16:01   #72
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 37,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by VAPA-Rick View Post
So Bren, since you're such a sleuth, was that the allegation by me in what you saw? Or was there another description of what actually happened? Just wondering.
Best I recall, you claimed they stopped you for "having out of state plates."

That seems like a good story to you...because you didn't stop to think how many thousands of people they'd have to stop for out of state plates every day, or why they'd even care, or why other people aren't complaining about these license plate stops in San Antonio.

Your story made it worse, not better.

Then...and here's the kicker...even if they stopped you illegally for out of state plates, you're still the one who went to jail for refusing to show your license and insurance that you are required to show.

If several unrelated people have the same problem with the same police, logic tells me the police are the problem.

If the same person has the same problem with several unrelated police officers from different departments and different governments, that person is the problem.
__________________
Quote:
This is the internet - you will never learn to shoot here.
- Me, 2014.

Last edited by Bren; 07-31-2012 at 16:17..
Bren is offline  
Old 07-31-2012, 16:08   #73
DustyJacket
Directiv 10-289
 
DustyJacket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Missouri, East of KC
Posts: 6,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by VAPA-Rick View Post
And why is that exactly? Because you expect military officers and NCOs to not take steps to protect themselves and their families from those who break the law?
No.
Because I would expect an officer to NOT go around sparking confrontations.

You caused that BP interaction to turn into what it became.

You are a more clever version of Leonard Embody. That is all.
__________________
"...our quick technology allows use to indulge our deepest stupidity and tastelessness with out first thinking...."
DustyJacket is offline  
Old 07-31-2012, 16:09   #74
11A
Senior Member
 
11A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 247
I used the word argument because you seem to be arguing based on emotion vs. discussing objectively.

The argument is that you need this new equipment to guard from an unlawful arrest. The courts already provide that. Attacking LEOs personally over the Internet doesn't go far for furthering the discussion you are attempting to have. Accepting the suggestions and opinions of others without trying to defend yourself with emotion instead of fact will also further the conversation.
11A is offline  
Old 07-31-2012, 16:11   #75
VAPA-Rick
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11A View Post
Are there some bad police officers? Yes. But, can you tell me that there aren't people who are bad at their jobs in other professions? I'm betting not.
I agree. But can you tell me how many other profession are out there, where a "bad" individual can ruin the life, or take the life, of those they do business with?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 11A View Post
Just having your smoke screen and sirens is illegal where I work. You might want to check your local laws before telling us you don't break them (refer to post #1 of your locked thread in GNG).
If you can quote the text of laws of states where those things are illegal, I'll remove them if I'm located in such a state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 11A View Post
As for post #49 in your locked thread, we don't care about cameras because it doesn't violate any law or the 1st Amendment in any way. If you don't know, many of us carry microphones and are videotaped anyways.
Yes, but a citizen who is the victim of unlawful police action, often has a tough time getting the government to hand over that video when it doesn't show something favorable to the cops. Case in point, my buddy Antonio, a West Point graduate, Army Ranger qualified, combat veteran, masters from Stanford, who has been victimized by a lying cop who said that Antonio "spit" on him, when all he actually did was take pictures of the cop while he arrested some young lady. Fortunately a bystander was across the street and recorded Antonio getting arrested, and so there is proof Antonio did not spit on the cop.

The cops still have not released the dash camera footage. Had that patriotic American across the street not recorded the arrest, Antonio would be up the creek as he faces a felony with 2-10 years in prison because of this lying cop.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 11A View Post
We don't care about concealed carry either as long as its done legally. What we do care about is people who do things specifically to stop us from doing our job.
Legal concealed carry. You mean the Second Amendment? No, I'm guessing you mean permits from state governments to decide who gets to enjoy their Second Amendment right and who doesn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 11A View Post
As for post #67 in your locked thread, refer to Article 134 of the UCMJ because that it is the one that applies for obeying law enforcement. If you plan on using your electric handles at all, refer to Article 128 as well.
Please quote the relevant portions that apply. Thanks in advance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 11A View Post
Also, where I work you do not have the option of not complying with orders during a traffic stop. If you think they are legal then you can take it up in court. Attempting to stop an "unlawful arrest" during the encounter is going to get you more charges.
Glad I don't work where you work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 11A View Post
You are taking it as if we don't like your car. Most of us could care less what you spend your money on.
That's not how I'm taking it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 11A View Post
What we do care about is your intent on the equipment.
And what are my intentions, and what is your evidence? I'm particularly interested in any evidence you have that my intentions for the equipment have anything to do with cops who are not breaking the law, since that seems to be what you're implying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 11A View Post
Also, your quote from your video is very pointed and shows your true intent whether you meant it to or not:
"Ever have a negative interaction with someone who claims to "Serve and Protect" when behind the wheel?"
What intent is that? BTW, that's not my video and that's not my quote. That video was produced by CopBlock.Org when they interviewed me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 11A View Post
No one I have ever stopped has had a pleasant interaction with me when behind a wheel simply because I have stopped them for a violation. We don't deal with people in their "good times" because no one ever calls the cops because they are having a good day and getting stopped in their vehicles is unpleasant.
I disagree, although I'm sure your experience is more the norm, and that you rarely deal with people like me. If I am stopped by a cop who is doing his job, I thank him for doing so, and I take my lumps. The law should be enforced impartially, and nobody should get a pass. That includes me. It also includes everybody else, including LEO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 11A View Post
Also, you still haven't posted info on your military service. If you want mine, look at my user name.
As I've said before, it's not relevant.
VAPA-Rick is offline  
Old 07-31-2012, 16:12   #76
DustyJacket
Directiv 10-289
 
DustyJacket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Missouri, East of KC
Posts: 6,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11A View Post
Resisting arrest is against the law, even if you believe it to be an unlawful arrest; at least it is in Ohio.
And in Colorado. A traffic stop counts as an arrest.

And, shocking the officer would count as assault on a police officer. Who knows, it may get the added "with a deadly weapon" if the voltage causes a physical injury.

it is better to fight battles in court rather than on the street.
__________________
"...our quick technology allows use to indulge our deepest stupidity and tastelessness with out first thinking...."
DustyJacket is offline  
Old 07-31-2012, 16:13   #77
VAPA-Rick
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11A View Post
Also, telling someone you are going to hurt them and then doing it is still assault. Doing it in self defense is an affirmative defense in court, but it is still assault.
So if I tell somebody that, if they rape my wife (or do some other illegal action), that I will taze them - and then they do that illegal action, and I taze them in defense of myself or my wife....that is assault?

You are wrong.
VAPA-Rick is offline  
Old 07-31-2012, 16:19   #78
VAPA-Rick
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11A View Post
Because anyone from the Officer Corps that purposely mentions the military and then goes on to explain how they are going to break the law degrades military;
Except nobody has said that. It's a nice caricature, but it has nothing to do with me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 11A View Post
Resisting arrest is against the law, even if you believe it to be an unlawful arrest; at least it is in Ohio.
No, it's not. The Supreme Court, not to mention common sense, has ruled that people have the right to defend themselves against unlawful police attempts to use violence against them, to include lethal force. Illinois' shameful Supreme Court said differently not too long ago, and so their legislature passed a law making it clear that people have the right to defend themselves against all criminals, regardless of whether or not they have a badge. I would have liked to have seen that case go up to the SCOTUS, so the Illinois Supreme Court could have gotten the spanking it deserved, but good on the legislature for doing it.

Let me guess, you disagree? So answer me this. A cop pulls over a couple. The cop says to the male driver, I need you to stay in the car, and I need to examine your wife in the woods, as he unzips his fly. The cops says, "It's a legal order, I need to make sure she has no contraband on her."

Your answer is that the husband and the wife have to comply? Some of you say, if your rights were violated when he unlawfully pulled you over, and then raped your wife, well - don't disobey the officer, fight it in court. Really? That's the answer? And you think that's the law?
VAPA-Rick is offline  
Old 07-31-2012, 16:20   #79
wprebeck
Got quacks?
 
wprebeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In a flooded corn field
Posts: 8,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by VAPA-Rick View Post
So if I tell somebody that, if they rape my wife (or do some other illegal action), that I will taze them - and then they do that illegal action, and I taze them in defense of myself or my wife....that is assault?

You are wrong.
Once again, YOU don't determine if the stop is legal. Not unless you're wearing a black robe, and your job description has the word "Judge"in it somewhere. How hard a concepts is that to grasp?
wprebeck is offline  
Old 07-31-2012, 16:22   #80
VAPA-Rick
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by lpo View Post
Is this the same Richard Rynearson who was a pilot in the Air Force? Possibly with a medal of Valor?
Wouldn't be relevant one way or the other. My employment has no bearing whatever on this issue.
VAPA-Rick is offline  

 
  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:34.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 613
159 Members
454 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31