Who is listening in on your phone calls? On a landline, it could be anyone, says privacy activist Christopher Soghoian, because surveillance backdoors are built into the phone system by default, to allow governments to listen in. But then again, so could a foreign intelligence service ... or a criminal. Which is why, says Soghoian, some tech companies are resisting governments' call to build the same backdoors into mobile phones and new messaging systems. Learn how some tech companies are working to keep your calls and messages private.
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and much more.
Find closed captions and translated subtitles in many languages at http://www.ted.com/translate
Follow TED news on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/tednews
Like TED on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TED
Subscribe to our channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/TEDtalksD...
OFF THE WIRE
Supreme Court Says Never Speak to a Police Officer
by WaTcHeR »
Read what rights you have when dealing with a police officer http://www.policecrimes.com/police.html
Washington — The Supreme Court retreated from strict enforcement of the famous Miranda decision on Tuesday, ruling that a crime suspect's words could be used against him if he failed to clearly invoke his rights clearly and, instead, answered a single question.
In the past, the court has said the "burden rests on the government" to show that a crime suspect has "knowingly and intelligently waived" his rights.
But in a 5-4 decision Tuesday, the court said that a citizen must invoke his rights. If he fails to do so, anything he says can be used to convict him, the justices said.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that police were "not required to obtain a waiver" of the suspect's "right to remain silent before interrogating him."
In this case, Michigan police had informed the suspect, Van Thompkins, of his rights, including the right to remain silent. Thompkins said he understood, but he did not tell the officer he wanted to stop the questioning or speak to a lawyer.
But he sat in a chair and said nothing for about two hours and 45 minutes. At that point, the officer asked, "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?"
"Yes," Thompson said and looked away. He refused to sign a confession or speak further, but he was convicted of first-degree murder, based largely on his one-word reply.
The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Thompkins' conviction on the grounds that the use of the incriminating answer violated his right against self-incrimination under the Miranda decision.
The Supreme Court reversed that ruling of a lower court ruling and reinstated the conviction. "A suspect who has received and understood the Miranda warnings and has not invoked his Miranda rights waives the right to remain silent by making an uncoerced statement to the police," Kennedy said. He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
The court ruled that an ambiguous situation would be treated in favor of the police.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent longer than the majority opinion, argued that the majority misread precedent and reached beyond the facts of the case to impose a tough new rule against defendants.
"Today's decision turns Miranda upside down," Justice Sotomayor wrote. "Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent—which, counter intuitively, requires them to speak."
Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer joined her dissent.
The majority ruling is in line with the position taken by the Obama administration and Supreme Court nominee U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan. In December, she filed a brief on the side of Michigan prosecutors and argued that "the government need not prove that a suspect expressly waived his rights."
She said that "if a suspect knows and understands his Miranda rights," anything he says can be used against him in court."Cops that lie, need to die!" A police officer that lies to get an arrest or send someone to prison should be shot.
"In the U.S., a cop with a gun can commit the most heinous crime and be given the benefit of the doubt."
"The U.S. Government does not have rights, it has privileges delegated to it by the people."
WaTcHeR
Moderator
Posts: 8268
Joined: 04 Mar 2007, Sun 1:25 pm
Location: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Website Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Supreme Court Says Never Speak to a Police Officer
Supreme Court trims Miranda warning rights: `Death by a thousand cuts' says defense attorney
You have the right to remain silent, but only if you tell the police that you're remaining silent.
You have a right to a lawyer — before, during and after questioning, even though the police don't have to tell you exactly when the lawyer can be with you. If you can't afford a lawyer, one will be provided to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you, which, by the way, are only good for the next two weeks?
The Supreme Court made major revisions to the now familiar Miranda warnings this year. The rulings will change the ways police, lawyers and criminal suspects interact amid what experts call an attempt to pull back some of the rights that Americans have become used to over recent decades.
The high court has made clear it's not going to eliminate the requirement that police officers give suspects a Miranda warning, so it is tinkering around the edges, said Jeffrey L. Fisher, co-chair of the amicus committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
"It's death by a thousand cuts," Fisher said. "For the past 20-25 years, as the court has turned more conservative on law and order issues, it has been whittling away at Miranda and doing everything it can to ease the admissibility of confessions that police wriggle out of suspects."
The court placed limits on the so-called Miranda rights three times during the just-ended session. Experts viewed the large number of rulings as a statistical aberration, rather than a full-fledged attempt to get rid of the famous 1966 decision. The original ruling emerged from police questioning of Ernesto Miranda in a rape and kidnapping case in Phoenix. It required officers to tell suspects taken into custody that they have the right to remain silent and to have a lawyer represent them, even if they can't afford one.
The court's three decisions "indicate a desire to prune back the rules somewhat," Kent Scheidegger, the legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a victims' rights group. "But I don't think any overruling of Miranda is in the near future. I think that controversy is pretty much dead."
The Supreme Court in 2000 upheld the requirement that the Miranda warning be read to criminal suspects.
This year's Supreme Court decisions did not mandate changes in the wording of Miranda warnings read by arresting police officers. The most common version is now familiar to most Americans, thanks to television police shows: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?"
However, the court did approve one state version of the Miranda warnings that did not specifically inform suspects that they had a right to have a lawyer present during their police questioning.
The Miranda warning used in parts of Florida told suspects: "You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview."
Lawyers — and the Florida Supreme Court — said that didn't make clear that lawyers can be present as the police are doing their questioning. But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing the 7-2 majority decision, said all the required information was there.
"Nothing in the words used indicated that counsel's presence would be restricted after the questioning commenced," Ginsburg said. "Instead, the warning communicated that the right to counsel carried forward to and through the interrogation."
The next day, the court unanimously limited how long Miranda rights are valid.
The high court said for the first time that a suspect's request for a lawyer is good for only 14 days after the person is released from police custody. The 9-0 ruling pulled back from an earlier decision that said that police must halt all questioning for all time if a suspect asks for a lawyer.
Police can now attempt to question a suspect who asked for a lawyer — once the person has been released from custody for at least two weeks — without violating the person's constitutional rights and without having to repeat the Miranda warning.
"In our judgment, 14 days will provide plenty of time for the suspect to get reacclimated to his normal life, to consult with friends and counsel and to shake off any residual coercive effects of his prior custody," said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion.
And finally, the court's conservatives used their 5-4 advantage to rule that suspects must break their silence and tell police they are going to remain quiet if they want to invoke their "right to remain silent" and stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer.
All the criminal suspect needs to say is he or she is remaining silent, wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy. "Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his 'right to cut off questioning.' Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent."
But Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the majority's decision "turns Miranda upside down."
"American citizens must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent — which counter intuitively requires them to speak." "At the same time, suspects will be legally presumed to have waived their rights even if they have given no clear expression of their intent to do so."
Police officers will look at these decisions and incorporate them into their training, said James Pasco of the National Fraternal Order of Police. "Officers are expected to adapt to changes required by the Supreme Court," Pasco said. "This will be no different."
But Fisher thinks the court's Miranda decisions will make it easier for police to get confessions out of people who don't want to confess. "Those decisions open up ways for cops to work around Miranda," Fisher said.
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0802/expert ... k-miranda/"Cops that lie, need to die!" A police officer that lies to get an arrest or send someone to prison should be shot.
"In the U.S., a cop with a gun can commit the most heinous crime and be given the benefit of the doubt."
"The U.S. Government does not have rights, it has privileges delegated to it by the people."
WaTcHeR
Moderator
Posts: 8268
Joined: 04 Mar 2007, Sun 1:25 pm
Location: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Website Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Supreme Court Says Never Speak to a Police Officer
by WaTcHeR »
When U.S. law enforcement officials captured suspected Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad, they did the unthinkable: They read him his Miranda rights. Despite the fact that Shahzad continued to cooperate after the reading of his rights, defense hawks criticized the move as soft on terrorism. Now, one member of Congress has introduced a startling solution:
The bill filed Thursday by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) would change federal law by creating a procedure to question a suspected terrorist for up to four days before taking him or her to court without jeopardizing prosecutors’ ability to use statements made by a suspect during that time.
It would also express Congress’s view that authorities can delay reading Miranda warnings “for as long as is necessary” to elicit intelligence from a terror suspect.
The White House has yet to take a position on Schiff's bill, but you can bet Attorney General Eric Holder will like what he sees.
Under the bill, the attorney general or the director of national intelligence or their top deputies could certify to a court that an individual is a terrorism suspect and “may be able to provide intelligence to protect the public safety.” In such cases, authorities could question the individual for up to 48 hours without facing an automatic presumption that the statements couldn’t be used in court. A judge or magistrate could extend the period for another 48 hours “for good cause shown.”
While "for good cause shown" sounds like the legal equivalent of "just for fun," Ben Wittes, an analyst at the Brookings Institution, said he liked the bill, except for the only-four-days-of-detention part.
Wittes also said 48 to 96 hours really doesn’t give interrogators much time to talk to a suspect. “If you’re going to do this, you might as well give the government more time than that,” the Brookings expert said.
That's right, federal authorities "might as well" gain the power to hold and question suspected criminals for extended periods of time. While one would expect less hawkishness from a bill written by a California Democrat, the fact that Schiff is up for re-election against this guy puts things in context. When your opponent lists his first two credentials as "former military, former law enforcement," it's time to move to the right, no matter how misguided curtailing prisoners' rights may be.
The bill filed Thursday by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) would change federal law by creating a procedure to question a suspected terrorist for up to four days before taking him or her to court without jeopardizing prosecutors’ ability to use statements made by a suspect during that time.
It would also express Congress’s view that authorities can delay reading Miranda warnings “for as long as is necessary” to elicit intelligence from a terror suspect.
The White House has yet to take a position on Schiff's bill, but you can bet Attorney General Eric Holder will like what he sees.
Under the bill, the attorney general or the director of national intelligence or their top deputies could certify to a court that an individual is a terrorism suspect and “may be able to provide intelligence to protect the public safety.” In such cases, authorities could question the individual for up to 48 hours without facing an automatic presumption that the statements couldn’t be used in court. A judge or magistrate could extend the period for another 48 hours “for good cause shown.”
While "for good cause shown" sounds like the legal equivalent of "just for fun," Ben Wittes, an analyst at the Brookings Institution, said he liked the bill, except for the only-four-days-of-detention part.
Wittes also said 48 to 96 hours really doesn’t give interrogators much time to talk to a suspect. “If you’re going to do this, you might as well give the government more time than that,” the Brookings expert said.
That's right, federal authorities "might as well" gain the power to hold and question suspected criminals for extended periods of time. While one would expect less hawkishness from a bill written by a California Democrat, the fact that Schiff is up for re-election against this guy puts things in context. When your opponent lists his first two credentials as "former military, former law enforcement," it's time to move to the right, no matter how misguided curtailing prisoners' rights may be.
http://reason.com/blog/2010/08/02/those ... y-coming-t"Cops that lie, need to die!" A police officer that lies to get an arrest or send someone to prison should be shot.
"In the U.S., a cop with a gun can commit the most heinous crime and be given the benefit of the doubt."
"The U.S. Government does not have rights, it has privileges delegated to it by the people."
WaTcHeR
Moderator
Posts: 8268
Joined: 04 Mar 2007, Sun 1:25 pm
Location: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Website Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Supreme Court Says Never Speak to a Police Officer
by WaTcHeR »
New rules allow investigators to hold domestic-terror suspects longer than others without giving them a Miranda warning, significantly expanding exceptions to the instructions that have governed the handling of criminal suspects for more than four decades.
The move is one of the Obama administration's most significant revisions to rules governing the investigation of terror suspects in the U.S. And it potentially opens a new political tussle over national security policy, as the administration marks another step back from pre-election criticism of unorthodox counterterror methods.
The Supreme Court's 1966 Miranda ruling obligates law-enforcement officials to advise suspects of their rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present for questioning. A 1984 decision amended that by allowing the questioning of suspects for a limited time before issuing the warning in cases where public safety was at issue.
That exception was seen as a limited device to be used only in cases of an imminent safety threat, but the new rules give interrogators more latitude and flexibility to define what counts as an appropriate circumstance to waive Miranda rights.
Matthew Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said the memo ensures that "law enforcement has the ability to question suspected terrorists without immediately providing Miranda warnings when the interrogation is reasonably prompted by immediate concern for the safety of the public or the agents." He said "the threat posed by terrorist organizations and the nature of their attacks—which can include multiple accomplices and interconnected plots—creates fundamentally different public safety concerns than traditional criminal cases."
The new guidelines could blunt criticism from Republicans, many of whom have pushed for terror suspects to be sent to military detention, where they argue that rigid Miranda restrictions don't apply. But many liberals will likely oppose the move, as might some conservatives who believe the administration doesn't have legal authority to rein in such rights.
The Justice Department believes it has the authority to tinker with Miranda procedures. Making the change administratively rather than through legislation in Congress, however, presents legal risks.
New York Republican Peter King, chairman of the House homeland-security committee, is among the lawmakers who welcomed Mr. Holder's call to change Miranda. At a hearing last year, Mr. King said, "It's important that we ensure that the reforms do go forward and that at the very least the attorney general consults with everyone in the intelligence community before any Miranda warning is given."
The Miranda protocols have been controversial since the high court formalized a practice that was already in use by the FBI, albeit not uniformly. Conservatives have long argued that the warning impedes law enforcement's ability to protect the public.
President Barack Obama has grappled with a web of terrorism policies cobbled together since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Before becoming president, Mr. Obama had criticized the Bush administration for going outside traditional criminal procedures to deal with terror suspects, and for bypassing Congress in making rules to handle detainees after 9/11. He has since embraced many of the same policies while devising additional ones—to the disappointment of civil-liberties groups that championed his election. In recent weeks, the administration formalized procedures for indefinitely detaining some suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, allowing for periodic reviews of those deemed too dangerous to set free.
The Bush administration, in the aftermath of 9/11, chose to bypass the Miranda issue altogether as it crafted a military-detention system that fell outside the rules that govern civilians. Under Mr. Bush, the government used Miranda in multiple terror cases. But Mr. Bush also ordered the detention of two people in a military brig as "enemy combatants." The government eventually moved both suspects—Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, and Ali al-Marri, a Qatari man—into the federal criminal-justice system after facing legal challenges. In other cases, it processed suspects through the civilian system.
An increase in the number of domestic-terror cases in recent years has made the issue more pressing.
The Miranda change leaves other key procedures in place, notably federal rules for speedy presentation of suspects before a magistrate, normally within 24 hours. Legal experts say those restrictions are bigger obstacles than Miranda to intelligence gathering. The FBI memo doesn't make clear whether investigators seeking exemptions would have to provide a Miranda warning at the time of such a hearing.
Also unchanged is the fact that any statements suspects give during such pre-Miranda questioning wouldn't be admissible in court, the memo says.
OFF THE WIRE
MSNBC correspondent Jeremy Lancaster sat down with government official Darrin Cornia to discuss recent rumors that have been in circulation in regard to registered motorcycle owners being placed on a classified FBI gang list.
Darrin Cornia who currently holds a position within the National Security Branch of the government agreed to complete transparency prior to the interview with MSNBC’s Jeremy Lancaster and did remain direct and seemingly forthright throughout his conversation with Lancaster.
After a few moments of introduction, Lancaster bluntly asked the following question,” Mr. Cornia, if I were to make the statement, all registered motorcycle owners are currently showing on a classified FBI gang list, would the statement be true or false?
Cornia responded by saying, “That would be a true statement, the FBI has been collecting and compiling Department of Motor Vehicles and Drivers License Division records for the purpose of adding those that own motorcycles to a classified gang list since 1994.
Lancaster asked Cornia to explain the reasoning behind the list which seems inappropriately broad, to Cornia answered the question with the following statement, “It’s nothing more than collecting and utilizing data. We may not like to admit it, but the truth of the matter is that those that own and operate motorcycles are 67% more likely to be involved in illegal or criminal activity than those that do not own or operate a motorcycle.”
The National Security Official went on to explain, “It’s the same as firearms, if local P.D or Highway Patrol were to pull someone over that is a registered firearm owner, that officer has the right to know this information going into the interaction, the same could be said about a local P.D or Highway Patrol Officer that pulled over a registered motorcycle owner, the situations are honestly interchangeable in the eyes of National and Homeland Security.
MSNBC correspondent Jeremy Lancaster asked Cornia if placing citizens on a gang list just because they are registered motorcycle owners is considered as profiling, Cornia responded to the question by saying, “as a nation do we complain when we add someone that has a Crips or Bloods tattoo to a gang list even though the individual swears up and down that they don’t have gang affiliation? Again these are 2 situations that are interchangeable, we can’t pick and choose.”
Lancaster asked how individuals can find out if they are on this classified gang list to which Cornia responded, “Did you register a motorcycle or obtain a Class M license anytime between the year 1994 and 2015? If so, than you are on the list.”
The MSNBC correspondent concluded the interview by asking Cornia, “aside from potential profiling from law enforcement, are there potentially any additional consequences of being on this gang list?” Cornia responded by saying, “the purpose of the list is to collect and utilize data, not to create consequences. Aside from notifying law enforcement that you are a registered motorcycle owner or operator, it can show up to potential employers on select background checks.”
What motivates the people who make up the content contributors found in "The 1% Rule?" Perhaps the following story offers some clues. (This is an excerpt from our forthcoming book "Citizen Marketers.")
As a patch, it’s pretty simple: A diamond shape surrounded by a blue border, with "1%" embroidered in the middle. It's worn over the heart by members of motorcycle clubs that celebrate their outlaw status from mainstream motorcycle society. They call themselves the "One Percenters."
The inspiration for the patch and its meaning can be traced to 1947, when members of the Pissed Off Bastards of Bloomington motorcycle club and the Boozefighters Motorcycle Club, showed up in Hollister, California, for that town's annual motorcycle race. As parties involving beer in summer heat sometimes do, things got out of hand.
A photographer for Life magazine happened to be attending the race and snapped a picture of a drunken biker perched atop a Harley Davidson, surrounded by broken beer bottles. The photo was published in Life with a caption that read, "Cyclist's Holiday: He and Friends Terrorize Town." A brief story accompanying the photo said 4,000 members of a motorcycle club were responsible for destructive mayhem. The photo and story provoked the American Motorcyclists Association to denounce the boozed-up bikers. It assured worried citizens that 99 percent of its members were law-abiding citizens, thereby marginalizing the remaining "1 percent" as outlaws.
The story has been the inspiration and founding principle for outlaw motorcycle clubs around the world. One Percenters organize and wear their patches as the proverbial finger raised toward society’s expectations of them. For decades, the story of what happened in Hollister has been repeated by numerous writers in magazines and newspapers, codifying its legend.
William L. Dulaney, a visiting professor at Western Carolina University spent months researching the history of the One Percenters for the academic periodical, "The International Journal of Motorcycle Studies." From months spent conducting field research around the United States, and having spent years as a member of an outlaw motorcycle club himself, he argues that contemporary One Percenters in "outlaw" motorcycle gangs are not necessarily pro-criminal, they are anti-bureaucracy. They rebel against the commonality of mainstream expectations.
Furthermore, the One Percenter clubs are organized around the idea of a community, and their unconventional lives and motorcycle lifestyles are reinforced by the strong-as-steel bonds with other members. They revel, sometimes raucously in beer-soaked pandemonium, in a culture that conventional society frowns on. Forget seeking the approval of conventional governing bodies; the One Percenters revel in their minority status.
They are outlaws of culture.
Dulaney surprises us, though, by debunking parts of the Hollister legend. The photo of the drunken biker? The Life photographer staged it. There was rowdiness in Hollister on that fateful weekend, but police made only one arrest. And there’s no evidence the American Motorcyclists Association denounced the bikers, one percent or otherwise. The source of "1%" was likely due a letter to the editor that Life ran in a subsequent edition, taking the magazine to task for its coverage of Hollister. The letter writer wrote, "We regretfully acknowledge there was disorder in Hollister – not the acts of 4,000 motorcyclists, but rather of a small percentage of that number." Someone, somewhere, interpreted that to mean one percent and it stuck.
Even if the facts about Hollister were off, its premise still resonated with a slice of American culture. Today, earning a One Percenter patch is a badge of social status that continues on in a tiny number of American motorcyclist communities.
What they do is beyond the norm. Sometimes there is little recognition, but they are dedicated to and protective of their work and the community they're involved in. They excel on the edges of culture even if their percentage as content creators is little more than a rounding error to some companies. Numbers-wise, they are not huge, but the impact of their work can be.
(In a follow-up post, we'll look at the One Percenters and Netscape's desire to hire them.)
Update: This post showed up on the front page of Digg yesterday (thanks Bloodjunkie), and it sparked a -- let's say interesting -- round of 100+ comments within the Digg community. Ian Delaney sorts through some of them.
Update 2: A big hat tip to Colin McKay for the pointer to a story about the One Percenters who are going through a transition in Kansas City. It was his pointer that led us down the path toward this post. I'm a dope for not including a hat tip to him when this was first published.
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT........One thing I hope every one realizes is that the cops can and do lie.
Sometimes, despite your best efforts, the cops get involved. Maybe
someone else called the cops, maybe you felt the situation warranted
their involvement, or maybe they showed up at the scene. However they
got involved, they’re not going to go away just because you don’t want
to deal with them so it’s time to use your head.
A few years ago, I
would have said that the first rule in dealing with the cops is to
remain calm, keep your cool and don’t lose your temper. Now that’s rule
number 2. With the ubiquity of recording devices that we all carry
around in our pockets (cell phones), the first rule when dealing with
the police is to RECORD EVERYTHING! If you’re in a public place, the
police have no expectation of privacy so you can record them (except in
Illinois). Check your state and local laws, but in general, you’re
allowed to record. The police will tell you that you can’t record but we
all know the police will lie to you. If you can, have your recording
streamed to one of the several on line services available; that’s even
better. And obviously video and audio are better than just audio; but
take what you can get.
The second rule in dealing with the police
is to STAY CALM, keep your cool and don’t lose your temper. No matter
how right you are, losing your temper is likely to result in getting
cuffed, pepper sprayed, beat, shot, arrested or some combination of all
of those. Don’t yell at them, swear at them, give them the finger, or
provoke them. Treat them as you would a business client you don’t like.
That’s not to say that in order to avoid their wrath you need to
compromise anything but if you do end up being caged, there’s a better
likelihood that your arrest for “contempt of cop” will not result in any
charges sticking if you can substantiate a claim of not guilty of
disorderly conduct (which is usually just contempt of cop). Remaining
calm and being peaceful is no guarantee that you’re not going to be the
victim of abuse; however, you’re more likely to prevail if you don’t act
out of anger.
The third rule is, NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE. You
should never say anything to them that is not absolutely required by
law. It is NEVER in your best interest to give them information. Rather
than explain further, I would like to insist that you watch Part I and
Part II of this video. Watch the whole thing, it’s worth your time. This
rule would have been number one, but if you don’t follow the first two
rules, this one could be moot. If you lose your temper with the cops,
you’re going to say things that could be used against you later.
Furthermore, without a recording, they can falsify your statements.
The fourth rule is, NEVER CONSENT TO A SEARCH. It doesn’t matter if you
have nothing to hide. Refusing to consent to a search is your right and
court after court has ruled that refusing a search is not probable
cause for a search. If the cops tell you to empty your pockets, ask if
you’re being detained. If not, you are free to go; just walk away.
Unless I’m mistaken, you are never required to empty your pockets,
although if they place you under arrest, they might empty them for you.
The point is, consenting to a search only opens you up to more trouble.
The cops reading this of course will tell you that if you have nothing
to hide, consenting to search only helps the process, removes suspicion
and moves them on their way faster. Remember, cops lie. Sometimes, if
you don’t consent to a search, they’ll bring in the drug sniffing dogs
and then signal them to “alert” which means they’ve found something.
Then they will search your car claiming probable cause. They will do
this to harass you and waste your time. If they’re going to waste your
time though, you can waste theirs by demanding that a supervisor comes
to the scene. When you do this, a supervisor must come and they cannot
leave until that time. Complain to the supervisor about being harassed
without probable cause.
The fifth rule is to LEAVE AS SOON AS
POSSIBLE. Ask if you’re being detained; if you’re not, leave. Also,
familiarize yourself with the Terry Stop rules. The longer you stick
around, the higher the probability is that you will be the victim of
some police misconduct, even if you were the one that called the cops.
The sixth rule is, NEVER LET THEM IN YOUR HOUSE without a warrant. In
fact, without a warrant, you’re not even required to open the door or
say anything at all to them. Just tell them you have nothing to say to
them and you would prefer that they leave. Once you invite them in, you
have opened your home to a search.
The seventh and last rule is
KNOW YOUR RIGHTS. The more your know your rights and assert them
(calmly) to the police, the more likely they are to leave you alone.
They are bullies and bullies pick on weak, frightened, easily
intimidated people. Don’t be one of them. Stay in tune with CopBlock.org and other sources that report on police misconduct and your civil liberties.
These rules not only apply to the police, they apply to any government
agent that decides to interfere in your life. If Child Protective
Services comes to your door and demands to speak to your children or
inspect your home, tell them to leave unless they have a warrant. In
fact, feel free to be a little more rude to them than the cops since
they don’t have arrest powers.
Also, these are general rules that
apply to almost every situation. There are probably dozens of rules
related to much more specific situations. If you can think of a few more
general rules, please leave them in the comments
Categories: Your Rights under the US Constitution
The Blog can be reached at bikersofamerica.blogspot.com
Don’t Talk To Cops Ever
There are, to paraphrase a common biker saying, two kinds of people: Those who have been arrested and those who will be.
The video below, published here at the urging of a reader, presents a
brief primer on the pitfalls of talking to the police. It runs almost 50
minutes but if you have not yet been arrested it is worth that
investment of your time.
The recording is of a presentation made to
law students at the Regent University chapter of the Federalist Society
in Virginia Beach, Virginia. March 14, 2008. The lecture was titled “In
Praise of the Fifth Amendment: Why No Criminal Suspect Should Ever Talk
to the Police.” If you have not already memorized the advice it contains
you should probably watch the video and take notes.
The first
speaker is Regent Law Professor James Duane. The second speaker is
Suffolk County Virginia Commonwealth Attorney George W. Bruch. At the
time of the recording Bruch was a detective for the Virginia Beach
Police Department.
COMMENT`S
A very good video, You’ve
provided a public service by sharing this. One thing I hope every one
realizes is that the cops can and do lie. The cop can tell you he’s
investigating a (fictitious) murder in Slingshit, North Carolina when
they really want you to admit to being in Bumfucked, Tennesee on a
particular night. Sometimes they just want you to add a piece to a
puzzle you don’t even know exists.
There was a guy in prison when I
was in, probably still is. The cops found a dead woman in a public
bathroom downtown, rounded up everybody in the area not wearing a suit
and tie. One of them was a retarded man. They promised him he could go
home if he would confess to killing her and the retarded guy, having
been told by his parents that the police were his friends, did so. Who
knows whether or not the guy really did it. Then, after his parents
hired appeals lawyers who won the appeals in Federal court, and while
the US marshals were at the front gate of Perry Correctional Institution
to enforce a court order that he be released, a department of
corrections official told the guy that if he was retried and convicted,
he’s have to go back through R&E as a new prisoner, might be
assigned to a different prison, and would lose his “A” custody status.
This guy allowed the SCDC to slip him to the Greenville County
Courthouse, where he pled guilty. Even though the time had elapsed for
the state to retry him and the marshals were there to enforce an order
that he be released!
It didn’t surprise me that the retarded guy was
that stupid, after all, that’s why they called him retarded instead of a
genius. The rest of us should be smarter. So many people are not.
The Motorcycle Riders Foundation (MRF) was alerted by our contacts in the U.S. Senate regarding a proposed change to the dedicated
405 Motorcycle Safety funds in the National Priority Safety Programs
that is authorized through the Highway Bill. The proposed change to this
program would add another criteria for states to qualify for motorcycle
safety funds. In order to qualify, states have to meet two of the six
current criteria. In addition to the current criteria, the additional
qualifying area would add a category for states that have a mandatory
helmet law for anyone under the age of 18. While meeting the under 18
helmet law is not mandatory to receive these funds, we at the MRF oppose
any such change. We cannot allow any amount of erosion of our rights on
this issue. The MRF is adamantly opposed to any federal law that would
require the use of a helmet, apparel or conspicuity standard.
We are actively monitoring this situation to make sure that this staff
discussion does not find its way into any draft highway bill
legislation. The back-door attempt to include language that leverages a
state without a helmet law for those under 18 as one of the minimum
criteria may encourage some states to change their current laws to make
it easier to qualify for these federal funds. In 1975, Congress enacted a
law forcing all states to enact a mandatory helmet in order to receive
any federal transportation funds. The MRF and state motorcycle rights
organizations around this country fought tirelessly during this time for
the law to be overturned. Congress flip-flopped on the helmet law by
striking down the 1975 law, then reinstating it in 1991. The MRF and the
motorcycle rights organizations were finally successful in 1995 by
overturning the federal mandatory helmet law.
We at the MRF have
already communicated with our contact that we would be adamantly
opposed to any changes to the language. This potential change could be
viewed as an attempt to blackmail states into changing their current
laws as a way to additionally qualify for these funds. While there is
not any official draft in circulation for the next highway bill
reauthorization, we will continue to remain on guard against attempts to
add or implement such changes.
The motorcycle safety funds were
first authorized in 2005 through the highway reauthorization known as
SAFETEA-LU. The federal government began a dedicated state grants
program in an attempt to reduce the number of single and multi-vehicle
crashes involving motorcyclists. The program has continued to be
authorized in the federal highway bill legislation and is currently
still active in the current iteration known as the FAST ACT of 2015
which is set to expire in September 2020. Last week, we reported that
NHTSA had released the fiscal year 2020 state grant totals for each of
the National Priority Safety Programs. The $4.2 million motorcycle
safety grant program was divided between forty-three states and Puerto
Rico. In fact, the motorcycle safety grant program only makes up 1.5% of
the appropriation for this program. With over 8.5 million registered
motorcycles on our nation’s roadways, the federal government only spends
on average $0.49 per motorcycle.
We will keep you posted on this
and other topics as lawmakers continue the process of drafting a new
transportation and infrastructure package in 2020.
This post may contain affiliate links. We may earn money from the companies mentioned in this post.Reading Time:4minutes
California Knife Laws
Knives laws in the Golden State are not as complicated as they initially seem. California is a big state and there is no state law preemption. Surprisingly, however, California is relatively relaxed in terms of ownership.
Broadly speaking, carrying knives whether open or concealed is legal in California. However, it is illegal to own many knives which are detailed below. It is also important to note that California, unlike many other states, has a very clear and strict definition of switchblades.
While knife owners should always be cognizant of the jurisdiction in which they are carrying, California is more welcome than most. The open and concealed carry of many knives is completely legal.
Restrictions on Knife Ownership in California
California is an open-carry state. Rather than listing, the knives are that legal to own, it may be easier to list the knives that bear restrictions. It is illegal to own the following types of knives in California:
Cane knives, lipstick knives, belt knives and any other knife that can be classified as misleading is illegal to own in California;
Undetectable knives, like misleading knives, are also outlawed
Dirks
Daggers
Stillettos
Ballistic knives
Switchblades in California
It is legal to own a switchblade that is less than two inches or shorter. The relevant law reads: “Every person who does any of the following with a switchblade knife having a blade or two or more inches in length is guilty of a misdemeanor: (a) possesses the knife in the passenger or driver’s area of any motor vehicle in any public place or place open to the public (b) carries the knifes upon the person (c) Sellers, offers for sale, exposes for sale, loans, transfers or gives the knife to any person.”[i]
This statute begs the question of whether it is legal or not to carry a switchblade in one’s personal vehicle. The plain reading of this statute suggests that it is legal to carry a switchblade in one’s car as long as the blade of the knife is less than two inches long. However, California defines switchblade in great detail stating that a switchblade is:
“[A] knife having the appearance of a pocketknife and includes a spring-blade knife, snap-blade knife, gravity knife, or any other similar type knife, the blade or blades of which are two or more inches in length and which can be released automatically by a flick of a button, pressure on the handle, flip of the wrist or other mechanical device, or is released by the weight of the blade or by any type of mechanism whatsoever.
“Switchblade knife” does not include a knife that opens with one hand utilizing thumb pressure applied solely to the blade of the knife or a thumb stud attached to the blade, provided that the knife has a detent or other mechanism that provides resistance that must be overcome in opening the blade, or that biases the blade back toward its closed position.”[ii] (emphasis added)
Knife owners should be cognizant of whether their particular knife fulfills all of the criteria outlined by this definition.
Open and Concealed Carry in Calfornia
The law also notes that all legal fixed blades knives must be worn in plain sight. Dirks and daggers are exempted from this law. There is no language in the law that prevents openly carrying a sword or similar knife.
Any blade that is concealed that is found to be locked in the open position cannot be conceal carried. The law, in relevant part, reads: “As used in this part, “dirk” or “dagger” means a knife or other instrument with or without a handguard that is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon that may inflict great bodily injury or death.
A nonlocking folding knife, a folding knife that is not prohibited by Section 21510, or a pocketknife is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon that may inflict great bodily injury or death only if the blade of the knife is exposed and locked into position.” (emphasis added)[iii]
Moving Forward
California is one of the friendlier states for knife owners. Following a “two-inch” rule, however, is prudent. If the blade of the knife is longer than two inches, it is not wise to conceal carry. There are additional rules for Los Angeles County specifically, which outlaw openly carrying a knife with a blade over three inches long.
It is important, as always, for knife owners to be cognizant of their surroundings and take appropriate precautions when carrying in a public place.
None of the material in this article should be interpreted as legal advice. I am not a lawyer. Never take any action with legal consequences without first consulting with a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction. This article should not be relied upon for making legal decisions. This information is provided for scholarship and general information only.
Note: Out of all of the pocket knives available on Amazon.com this one is my favorite everyday carry knife – click here to see what it is on Amazon.com. I love this knife! It’s built like a tank and holds an edge better than any other knife that I’ve owned…]
“THE BIKERS OF AMERICA, THE PHIL and BILL SHOW”,
A HARDCORE BIKER RIGHTS SHOW THAT HITS LIKE A BORED AND STROKED BIG TWIN! ON LIVE TUESDAY'S & THURDAY'S AT 6 PM P.S.T. 9 PM E.S.T.
What motivates the people who make up the content contributors found in "The 1% Rule?" Perhaps the following story offers some clues. (This is an excerpt from our forthcoming book "Citizen Marketers.")
As a patch, it’s pretty simple: A diamond shape surrounded by a blue border, with "1%" embroidered in the middle. It's worn over the heart by members of motorcycle clubs that celebrate their outlaw status from mainstream motorcycle society. They call themselves the "One Percenters."
The inspiration for the patch and its meaning can be traced to 1947, when members of the Pissed Off Bastards of Bloomington motorcycle club and the Boozefighters Motorcycle Club, showed up in Hollister, California, for that town's annual motorcycle race. As parties involving beer in summer heat sometimes do, things got out of hand.
A photographer for Life magazine happened to be attending the race and snapped a picture of a drunken biker perched atop a Harley Davidson, surrounded by broken beer bottles. The photo was published in Life with a caption that read, "Cyclist's Holiday: He and Friends Terrorize Town." A brief story accompanying the photo said 4,000 members of a motorcycle club were responsible for destructive mayhem. The photo and story provoked the American Motorcyclists Association to denounce the boozed-up bikers. It assured worried citizens that 99 percent of its members were law-abiding citizens, thereby marginalizing the remaining "1 percent" as outlaws.
The story has been the inspiration and founding principle for outlaw motorcycle clubs around the world. One Percenters organize and wear their patches as the proverbial finger raised toward society’s expectations of them. For decades, the story of what happened in Hollister has been repeated by numerous writers in magazines and newspapers, codifying its legend.
William L. Dulaney, a visiting professor at Western Carolina University spent months researching the history of the One Percenters for the academic periodical, "The International Journal of Motorcycle Studies." From months spent conducting field research around the United States, and having spent years as a member of an outlaw motorcycle club himself, he argues that contemporary One Percenters in "outlaw" motorcycle gangs are not necessarily pro-criminal, they are anti-bureaucracy. They rebel against the commonality of mainstream expectations.
Furthermore, the One Percenter clubs are organized around the idea of a community, and their unconventional lives and motorcycle lifestyles are reinforced by the strong-as-steel bonds with other members. They revel, sometimes raucously in beer-soaked pandemonium, in a culture that conventional society frowns on. Forget seeking the approval of conventional governing bodies; the One Percenters revel in their minority status.
They are outlaws of culture.
Dulaney surprises us, though, by debunking parts of the Hollister legend. The photo of the drunken biker? The Life photographer staged it. There was rowdiness in Hollister on that fateful weekend, but police made only one arrest. And there’s no evidence the American Motorcyclists Association denounced the bikers, one percent or otherwise. The source of "1%" was likely due a letter to the editor that Life ran in a subsequent edition, taking the magazine to task for its coverage of Hollister. The letter writer wrote, "We regretfully acknowledge there was disorder in Hollister – not the acts of 4,000 motorcyclists, but rather of a small percentage of that number." Someone, somewhere, interpreted that to mean one percent and it stuck.
Even if the facts about Hollister were off, its premise still resonated with a slice of American culture. Today, earning a One Percenter patch is a badge of social status that continues on in a tiny number of American motorcyclist communities.
That's why their story seems to be an apt analogy to describe a good deal of citizen marketers and their motivations, like someone who spends years blogging about Netflix, or campaigns to bring back a discontinued soda, or takes over the marketing for an upcoming movie, or volunteers to secret shop their favorite fast food chain, or anyone who contributes time and attention to a commercial cause. They, too, are outlaws of culture.
What they do is beyond the norm. Sometimes there is little recognition, but they are dedicated to and protective of their work and the community they're involved in. They excel on the edges of culture even if their percentage as content creators is little more than a rounding error to some companies. Numbers-wise, they are not huge, but the impact of their work can be.
(In a follow-up post, we'll look at the One Percenters and Netscape's desire to hire them.)
Update: This post showed up on the front page of Digg yesterday (thanks Bloodjunkie), and it sparked a -- let's say interesting -- round of 100+ comments within the Digg community. Ian Delaney sorts through some of them.
Update 2: A big hat tip to Colin McKay for the pointer to a story about the One Percenters who are going through a transition in Kansas City. It was his pointer that led us down the path toward this post. I'm a dope for not including a hat tip to him when this was first published.
What motivates the people who make up the content contributors found in "The 1% Rule?" Perhaps the following story offers some clues. (This is an excerpt from our forthcoming book "Citizen Marketers.")
