|
Kann ich deine Urlaubspapier sehen bitte?
The preceding headline, translted into English, is Can I see your Travel Papers, please?
Thank you to Sascha[16], from Internet Relay Chat, Dal.Net server, Channel #Germany,
for the translation.
I must admit....the following caused a hot discussion in our offices this morning.
Read on. I hope it angers you also. :)
My friend Joe Horn from the ficticiousThug Enterprises has
graciously forwarded to me some interesting things off of some restricted list-servs along with
a couple of the articles from Vin Suprynowicz' column The Libertertarian. The names
of everyone except Joe and Mr. Suprynowicz, have been deleted. I would like to point out..these are
our LEO's. I would further like to point out that the views and opinions of the following
statements are not necessarily the opinions or stance of Olympic Arms, Inc., or it's employees.
From Suprynowicz' column:
"In the latest case, an Ohio Highway Patrolwoman decided to "pat down" a
citizen before offering him a "courtesy ride." Sure enough, the
up-till-then harmless citizen pulled his gun and shot the officer, who is
now hospitalized but expected to recover fully. The subject being searched
also got shot -- my police correspondents don't bother to mention how he
fared."
Joe posted this to one of the listserv's he is subscribed to. The problem being, did
the LEO have any right to frisk the citizen? The citizen, up until then, had done
nothing illegal. Wasn't he being subject to an unlawful search? Well, here is what a couple
of LEO's thought about that.
Officer OOOOO, of Maybeyourtown, replied:
"It is strictly a safety issue that is taught in many academies. A safety
pat-down for weapons has been determined as 'legal' by the courts for the
protection of the officer.
'I think you might be hung up on the word search. A safety pat-down
for weapons is NOT a search and has been determined so by the courts. When
it goes beyond a check of the outer clothing then you are crossing the line
of legality.'
Another officer, signing himself only XXXXX, was less conciliatory:
'Obviously you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. First,
what the trooper did does not constitute a search. It is called a 'patdown'
and its sole purpose is to protect the officer. This frisk is only an
attempt to ascertain that the person the officer is in contact with is
unarmed and does not pose a threat. There is no search involved unless the
officer detects something that could potentially be an offensive weapon.
...
'In this particular incident this tactic saved a LEO's life. You honestly
cannot believe that this frisk constitutes anything more than a minor
inconvenience for the citizen involved. In this case the citizen turned out
to be a wannabe cop killer, and the minor inconvenience saved the Ohio
trooper's life. ...'
Officer OOOOO then asked for the thoughts of Vin Suprynowicz on the subject.
Here are Vin's responses.
"This recurring recourse to the legal myth that a pat-down is not a
search is probably the most frightening part of these responses.
When we try to find something, yet contend we are not searching for
it, we are happily swallowing convenient, lawyerly lies merely because they
make us feel better.
This leads immediately to "You honestly cannot believe that this frisk
constitutes anything more than a minor inconvenience for the citizen
involved." I'm sure it's an equally "minor inconvenience" to show our
travel authorization papers, to prove any sum over $1,000 is not drug
money, and to show any cop my "racial identity card" upon demand. Hitler's
police state (like our own) was, at heart, nothing but an assemblage of
minor inconveniences ... so long as you were "law-abiding." Any German
police officer would have told you so.
Also note the notion that anyone who gets patted down, and subsequently
draws his weapon, must have been "a wannabe cop killer."
Probably not. After all, they had the gun earlier, and killed no cops.
More likely, they only panic, draw, and fire when they realize they are
about to be arrested and jailed -- and have their weapon confiscated --
under laws which VIOLATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
If they knew the officer would merely say, "Oh, I see you're armed. Now
be sure and handle that weapon safely sir," no crisis would ensue.
What if the officer, using his or her judgment, decides to offer a ride
to a citizen who, just before getting in the car, volunteers "By the way, I
have a loaded Thompson gun here in my backpack. But don't worry, I have a
license." Does the officer now decline to offer the ride?"
Joe Horn posted Suprynowicz' column to one of the listserv's he is on.
The following and preceeding comments form the officers of the list to what Suprynowicz'
had written.
Suprynowicz':
"Where I had pointed out that -- along with the frisk -- it would be
an equally 'minor inconvenience'
to show our travel authorization papers, to prove any sum over $1,000 is
not drug money, and to show any cop my racial identity card upon demand,"
one officer contended:
Officer:
'At this point we have completely separated from reality. I can't
remember forcing anyone to go through any of these motions. And I guess I
better get in line for my racial identity card. Anyone know where I can get
one?'"
That officer asked a question. Vin Suprynowicz had
an answer. Here it is.
"FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED AUG. 15, 1997
THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
'For the sake of officer safety,' Part Two
Last time I challenged the notion -- set forth by a number of police
officer correspondents -- that a "frisk" is not really a search, and is of
no great concern anyway, since it constitutes only a "minor inconvenience."
Presumably it's an equally "minor inconvenience" to show our travel
authorization papers, to prove any sum over $1,000 is not drug money, and
to show any cop my "racial identity card" upon demand, said I.
Over the Internet, one officer replied:
"At this point we have completely separated from reality. I can't
remember forcing anyone to go through any of these motions. And I guess I
better get in line for my racial identity card. Anyone know where I can get
one?"
Yes, I do.
As I've written before, if you are a member of a legally recognized
peyote church, you can now legally transport your religious sacrament home
from the point of purchase only if you are in possession of an official
government form, listing not only your BIA registration number, but also
your "percentage of (Indian) blood," which must be 25 percent or higher.
Police in many states can and will arrest legitimate church members, even
clergy, who are caught without -- or cannot qualify for -- this racial
identity card.
The number of cases where cops seize sums over $1,000 in cash --
especially from minority members -- and tell them, "If you want it back,
you have to go to court and prove it's not drug money," has become so huge
that demanding further documentation is absurd. In 80 percent of such
cases, no criminal charges are ever filed. "60 Minutes" recently did a
segment on a county in Florida where the deputies were doing this on a
massive scale along Interstate 95.
If I wish to travel to Knob Creek, Kentucky for the annual shoot-off with
my LEGALLY-OWNED machine gun, I must write in advance to acquire from the
BATF a "travel authorization permit" to "transfer" that weapon with me.
The officer "can't remember forcing anyone" to show a "travel
authorization document"? In this country, we call them "driver's licenses,"
a document which (with the aid of the officer's radio and computer) can be
used to access parts of your medical records, to learn whether or not you
own registered firearms, owe child support, etc.
This is MORE information than was contained in the "internal passports"
which were required in Hitler's Germany."
|
