"He Had No Idea What Their Plans Were"

In my previous post (I'd link to it, but you can just scroll down to the NEXT post) I told the story of three libertarian young men making a cross country trip in an R.V. They were stopped in Jones County Mississippi by the local sheriffs department because the deputy couldn't read the tag on the temporary plate. Well, now the sheriff has given his side of the story, or at least the departments side of the story. And it is F'd Up! Here, without edit, are the words/quotes of Jones County Sheriff Alex Hodge: Peter Eyre and Jason Talley of New Hampshire and Adam Mueller of Laurel were arrested during a routine traffic stop on Interstate 59. He said deputies gave the suspects numerous opportunities to identify themselves, but they refused to do so. Not exactly a truthful statement by the sheriff. Obviously, if you read the charges against the three men, you won't find anything about driving without a license in there, or refusing to produce a valid license... or vehicle registration or proof of insurance. The driver got out of the vehicle with license and registration in hand, and gave them to the officer. I'll delve deeper into the "numerous opportunities to identify themselves" stuff in a later quote. Uncertain of who or what they were dealing with, Hodge said deputies arrested the suspects and subsequent investigation revealed the individuals had an agenda which included not complying with orders given by authorities. They were discovered to be motorhomediaries.com activists. A citizen is only required to follow lawful requests given by authorities. Any request that goes against a citizens rights can be refused. Oh, and police can't give citizens "ORDERS". Orders are something done in a chain of command, or business setting. Citizens do not work for and are not below police officers in a chain of command. They are not military, no matter how much they want to believe the general public is the enemy. Regarding the individuals "agenda"... was the agenda illegal? They don't call for people to break laws, they simply call for us to exercise our rights, responsibilities, and freedoms. “We have a job to do and we will do it,” explained Hodge. “We are not here to promote or condemn anyone’s agenda." Then why did the sheriff decide it was important enough to state that they discovered these guys "had an agenda"? Obviously the sheriff is trying to condemn the agenda by stating it was something IT IS NOT. Read the "agenda" for yourself. “Our job is to provide protection and service to our citizens. When our deputy was confronted with these men who refused to identify themselves; he had no idea what their plans were.” There are two issues here. 1. The refusing to identify. No U.S. state currently requires a non-driving citizen to produce a government issued ID upon request of the police unless that person is a suspect of committing a crime, or is caught committing a crime. Non-drivers are only required to state their name, city, and state of residence. This was from the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Hiibel v 6th Judicial Court of Nevada in 2004. So, we know the driver provided photo identification, since he claims to have done so, and he wasn't charged with any moving violations. The two passengers both have claimed to have responded to the police requests for identification by stating their names and city/state of residence. 2. These men did not "confront" the deputy. The deputy pulled them over and initiated the whole thing when he requested, illegally, for the men who were passengers to supply him with documentation of their identities. This isn't Nazi Germany... there is no room for "Papers please" in the United States of America. BTW... unless the deputy is a psychic or has some ESP thing going on, he isn't going to have any idea of the plans of anyone he has pulled over... and they aren't required to explain their plans to him! “I am proud of our deputies handling of this traffic stop,” said Hodge. “I have demonstrated my willingness to admit when we are wrong. However, in this case, they handled themselves in a proper and professional manner.” Sorry sheriff. Proper and professional? It isn't proper or professional for the police to violate the rights of any US citizen.

What Rights or Freedom?

I've been following a developing story closely for the past 48 hours about what happens when three Americans (they are libertarians) who are just out being Americans in a free society, traveling the country and interacting with and enjoying the company of other Americans, meet up with the police. I am going to briefly introduce you to the three freedom loving libertarians, because their background is kind of important to the story. Pete attended school studying law enforcement. Jason was in the military. Particularly, military law enforcement/security. The other libertarian was just a regular "joe citizen" along for the ride. The ride was a cross country trip in an RV to meet up with, talk to, and report on liberty and freedom in the United States. They have been documenting their trip on Twitter and their own blog, The Motorhome Diaries. They've traveled from New Hampshire across the country to California, and were on the journey back eastward through the south. Unfortunately, the south includes Mississippi. The boys got arrested in Jones County Mississippi. I'll bet those "Barney Fifes" are going to regret ever deciding to fuck with these three guys. The major points of the stop and arrest are this: 1. The RV had NH temporary tags on it. This is the initial reason the officer gives for stopping them. 2. The officer escalates and calls in backup after he asks the driver whether there are weapons in the RV. The driver responded that there were two disassembled handguns in lock boxes with ammunition locked in another box on the RV. 3. The first arrest is because one of the occupants of the RV comes out with a video camera in hand. He is charged with "disorderly conduct". 4. The second arrest is because Jason refuses to show ID to the officer. Because Jason would not show his ID, he was pepper sprayed, placed in choke hold, and then cuffed. The charge... "resisting arrest". 5. The driver was the last person arrested. He was charged with... wait for it... "possession of beer in dry county". Here are a few things to ponder. The police asked for permission to search the RV for drugs. The driver said no. The police brought in a "drug sniffing canine" and then claimed the dog "signaled" a hit for marijuana. Four police officers scoured every inch of the RV, inside and the outside compartments... and found... NOTHING, other than two hand guns locked in a case and ammo in a separate locked case. They actually called the feds (the ATF) to see if they would like to file any charges for the weapons. The feds quickly (and smartly) declined. Unless you are driving a vehicle, a police officer has no legal right to ask you to produce a government issued ID card. This is true for EVERY state. Simply identifying yourself with name and address is all you are legally required to do. Of course you have to be truthful, or you can be charged with obstruction. Jason had identified himself by name and address. The cop wanted an ID and Jason asserted his right. Turns out the cop doesn't believe you have rights once he pulls out his pepper spray canister. There are some other interesting things in the story. Read it. Let me know what you think. Oh, and I'm returning to allowing anonymous comments. FREEDOM. [edited to add] I firmly believe the initial stop for a check on the validity of the out of state temporary tags was a legal stop. But once the driver produced a valid and legal drivers license, and the officer confirmed the tag was valid, anything that occurred after that was simple harassment by the police. Guns are legal in this country. Until you can overturn the second amendment... and I know some of you are trying your damnedest... this stop was flat out a violation of these citizens civil rights. Of course, to bring irony into it, the first two officers on scene were black. All three occupants of the RV were white.

All Your Shit Are Belong To USa

You see the signs all over the place. Once the weather gets warm, people start cleaning out their closets, their attics, their garages and sheds. They haven't use the stuff in years, but rather than toss it out in the trash, they decide to sell it... because someone might want it. In other words, they are getting rid of the junk they don't want taking up valuable storage space that could be used to store more important junk. Yard sales are pretty much the same nationwide. You gather all your crap together, put it on your front lawn and put up a Yard Sale sign, then wait for people to come to your house and give you money for the junk you don't want. Now if you live in Independence, Missouri... well the junk on your front lawn doesn't count, since you most likely believe it to be decorative, or actually consider your front lawn to be a storage area, just like the shed in the back yard that houses your meth lab and grandmas bedroom. But the time honored Yard Sale is slowly changing. Over the years, regulation has slowly crept into the practice of selling your unwanted shit to idiots. For instance, in the city of Brockton, Massachusetts (where I am originally from) the city requires ALL yard sales to have a permit issued by the city. There are other regulations in other parts of the country, but all of them are pretty much local city/county codes. Not any more. Uncle Sam now rules your Yard Sale. Yep, while sitting in your lawn chair, sipping an ice cold beer, watching the assholes peruse through your junk, the United States of America government now has a regulatory body and laws that apply to YOU! I mean it's not like the US has better, more important things to do. Especially since they've solved every single problem just by regulating/taxing/blowing up/purchasing-through-a-loan-that's-not-a-loan. Don't believe me? Read it for yourself. Page 4 of this pdf document has the following "money" line: This handbook will help sellers of used products identify types of potentially hazardous products that could harm children or others. CPSC’s laws and regulations apply to anyone who sells or distributes consumer products. This includes thrift stores, consignment stores, charities, and individuals holding yard sales and flea markets. * title refers to "all your base are belong to us", a phrase popular in gaming.

Monkeys At The Switch

There is a man by the name of Bill Godshall (God Shall, WTF?). Bill is the Executive Director of Smokefree Pennsylvania, and as you might guess is 100% in favor of every human being being legally denied the right to smoke... for their own good of course. Well, it might surprise you (as it did me) that Bill isn't against nicotine. He is what I refer to as an honest anti-smoking zealot, and they are few and far between. See, Bill is privy to lots of inside information, especially Food and Drug Administration inside information. He recently got a message from the FDA's Office of Legislation (hmmm, exactly where in the Constitution is the FDA empowered with the ability to pass legislation?) regarding an announcement being made on Tuesday May 2nd. Here is the info he's passing along: Subject/Headline: FDA Takes Enforcement Action on Electronic Smoking Products Planned Release Date: May 5 Driving Event: Compliance action Rollout Plan: Extensive rollout planned including press conference at HHS, press release, fact sheet, video for upload to YouTube, podcast, consumer article, consumer Q &A, key message points, internal media Q & A, Op-Ed, photos of products for posting on Internet. Other background, hidden factors: Action involves three largest distributors. One of the distributors has just sued FDA seeking a restraining order to prevent us from holding their product at the border. There is keen interest in this subject. E-cigarette kiosks are all over town, including Montgomery Mall. They're being advertised as a safer alternative to cigarettes. Our concern is that this might introduce nonusers to nicotine use. This is a drug delivery device. The content of the products have not been analyzed by FDA. To be sold, they would have to be approved by the agency. Bolding above is mine. Really? These E-cigarettes might introduce people who don't use nicotine RIGHT NOW to actually using nicotine? OK... I guess these "people" must have never walked into a Walmart and seen the Nicotine gum or patches that you can purchase over the counter. With no age limit. Actually, they aren't even "behind" a counter... these products produced by the big pharma companies are out there in the aisles, along with baby wipes, shampoo, and suppositories. WHOO HOO, PARTY! I have to give props to Mr. Godshall. He has written to the FDA to oppose the ban, "denying 45 million cigarette smokers access to exponentially less hazardous smokefree nicotine alternatives would result in millions of preventable deaths among smokers, millions of nonsmokers continuing to be exposed to tobacco smoke pollution, and tens of thousands of e-cigarettes users reverting back to smoking cigarettes." But it would seem the monkeys running the FDA can't grasp that simple concept. Not surprising. Sadly, not surprising at all.