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.