Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
What the Hell?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="1shot(bob)" data-source="post: 1555491" data-attributes="member: 1657"><p>OK. This is the last time I'm going to say this: <strong>this is not about hurt feelings, manliness, or small penis compensation, it's about following the rule of law</strong>.</p><p>If the LEO has nor rule of law to support his actions I have no legal ramification to abide by his requests. If he is overstepping his boundaries I am not obliged to follow his commands. It's not about feelings, it's about rights. His need to feel safe does not trump my rights. Ever!</p><p>What part of that do you not understand?</p><p>That was the topic of this post and some people keep trying to veer of into personal attacks about feelings and manhood. Stop it! Please!</p><p>We have the OK SDA and Terry v. Ohio as a discussion point. How do we interpret those two seemingly adverse legal documents? Does one supersede the other? Are both relevant in a traffic stop?</p><p>Another point in the topic is 'Are you willing to lay down your rights when a LEO is over-stepping his bounds?'</p><p></p><p>Ad hominem attacks and red herrings are NOT part of the discussion.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="1shot(bob), post: 1555491, member: 1657"] OK. This is the last time I'm going to say this: [B]this is not about hurt feelings, manliness, or small penis compensation, it's about following the rule of law[/B]. If the LEO has nor rule of law to support his actions I have no legal ramification to abide by his requests. If he is overstepping his boundaries I am not obliged to follow his commands. It's not about feelings, it's about rights. His need to feel safe does not trump my rights. Ever! What part of that do you not understand? That was the topic of this post and some people keep trying to veer of into personal attacks about feelings and manhood. Stop it! Please! We have the OK SDA and Terry v. Ohio as a discussion point. How do we interpret those two seemingly adverse legal documents? Does one supersede the other? Are both relevant in a traffic stop? Another point in the topic is 'Are you willing to lay down your rights when a LEO is over-stepping his bounds?' Ad hominem attacks and red herrings are NOT part of the discussion. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
What the Hell?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom