REASON #1: Talking to the police CANNOT help you. If the police are talking to you, it’s because they suspect you have committed a crime. If they have detained you, it’s because they already have enough evidence to arrest you and they want to see if you will admit it and thus, give them an even stronger case against you.If they have evidence to arrest you for a crime, they will. If they don’t, they won’t. It’s as simple as that.Talking to them or not talking to them won’t make a difference! No one has ever “talked his way out of” an arrest. If the police have enough evidence to arrest, they will. If you deny that you committed the crime, they will not believe you. They already have evidence suggesting that you committed the crime. They’ll assume you’re just doing what every criminal does in denying the offense. It will not prevent you from getting arrested.This is completely contrary to popular belief. For some reason, many people think that they are savvy enough or eloquent enough or well educated enough to be able to talk to the police and convince the police not to arrest them. But ask any police officer if because of the eloquence and convincing story of the suspect, they have ever been convinced not to arrest somebody whom they had originally intended to arrest, and they will tell you no. They will tell you that in their experience, no one has ever talked themselves out of getting arrested. Talking to the police cannot help you. It cannot prevent you from getting arrested. It can only hurt.
REASON #2: Even if you’re guilty, and you want to confess and get it off your chest, you still shouldn’t talk to the police. People plead guilty in America every day. Probably over 90% of defendants in state court plead guilty at some point during their case. Read more…
I just “discovered” Kris Anne Hall & Liberty First. You MUST GO HERE and listen to what this brilliant woman has to say regarding history, liberty and government.
The “prepper/survivalist/patriot/III %” community has absolutely zero social or political import, because the public face of the community is a bunch of fat, lazy, self-important redneck fucks who are failures in modern society. Despite the guns and macho-blustering bravado, the community poses absolutely zero real threat to the mainstream status quo, and the mainstream status quo recognizes that. All “they” have to do is point at the idiots—the “crazy gun nuts” and the “whacky survivalists,” and the sheep giggle and join in the finger-pointing and mockery. That’s not going to change, until you begin to be able to convince people that you are not just a string hanging on the fringe.
Until that changes, nothing changes….
go here MountainGuerrilla | Nous Defions!.
Originally posted on Freedom Is Just Another Word...:
She is a single mother of two who is being persecuted for exercising her Second Amendment rights.
Living in Philadelphia and working two jobs, Shaneen had already been the victim of previous robberies because she had to work late at night. So she bought a handgun, took a gun safety course and got a concealed carry permit.
Unfortunately, when she was stopped for a minor traffic violation in New Jersey, she thought she was doing the right thing when she announced…
View original 335 more words
EDITOR’S NOTE: A rise in unconstitutional activity would certainly facilitate and inspire a rise in “anti-government violence”. Let’s not forget that there would have never been a Bundy Ranch confrontation if the Feds had not denied protestors their 1st Amendment rights and inserted snipers to intimidate the Bundy family. Perhaps the DHS will fulfill its own prophecy through its own arrogance…
A leaked document from the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis predicts increased “anti-government violence over the next year.” The document says the inspiration for violence is Cliven Bundy’s Bunkerville standoff with the Bureau of Land Management from earlier in the year.
DHS’s seven-page report entitled Domestic Violent Extremists Pose a Threat to Government Officials and Law Enforcement points to the recent murders of two Las Vegas law enforcement officers as evidence that there is a “growing trend of anti-government violence compared to the previous four years and inspired by perceived government overreach and oppression” and the “perceived victory at Bunkervile” will “likely prompt more violence.”
Bundy’s 20-year legal dispute with the BLM over grazing fees on federal land escalated when the agency attempted to seize his cattle in the beginning of April. An armed stand off between the BLM and supporters of Bundy ensued until the feds backed off before any serious violence erupted and left the 67-year-old rancher’s land.
Jerad and Amanda Miller, a husband and wife who were at the Bundy ranch, later killed three people in Las Vegas, including two police officers, before killing themselves. The two left an ominous note, swastika, and Gadsden flag by the bodies of both officers. Ammon Bundy, son of rancher Cliven Bundy, told the Associated Press the Millers were not welcome at the Ranch and were kicked out after a few days, calling them “very radical” and that they didn’t “align themselves” with the Bundy’s protest movement.
These incidents that took place in the south and the west since 2010 and that DHS counts as a “surge in militia and lone offender extremists events with anti-government motivations and targets” are: Alaska militia men, Waffle House plot in Georgia, FEAR militia, LAX shooting, XXX Militia Splinter Group, Bunkerville Ranch, Texas Militia plot, Las Vegas shootings…..
By John W. Whitehead , June 23, 2014
“[I]f the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can ‘seize’ and ‘search’ him in their discretion, we enter a new regime. The decision to enter it should be made only after a full debate by the people of this country.”—U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
The U.S. Supreme Court was intended to be an institution established to intervene and protect the people against the government and its agents when they overstep their bounds. Yet as I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, Americans can no longer rely on the courts to mete out justice. In the police state being erected around us, the police and other government agents can probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts.
Whether it’s police officers breaking through people’s front doors and shooting them dead in their homes or strip searching innocent motorists on the side of the road, these instances of abuse are continually validated by a judicial system that kowtows to virtually every police demand, no matter how unjust, no matter how in opposition to the Constitution.
These are the hallmarks of the emerging American police state: where police officers, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace, are part of an elite ruling class dependent on keeping the masses corralled, under control, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens.
A review of the Supreme Court’s rulings over the past 10 years, including some critical ones this term, reveals a startling and steady trend towards pro-police state rulings by an institution concerned more with establishing order and protecting government agents than with upholding the rights enshrined in the Constitution.
Police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits. In Plumhoff v. Rickard (2014), the Court declared that police officers who used deadly force to terminate a car chase were immune from a lawsuit. The officers were accused of needlessly resorting to deadly force by shooting multiple times at a man and his passenger in a stopped car, killing both individuals.
Police officers can stop cars based only on “anonymous” tips. In a 5-4 ruling in Navarette v. California (2014), the Court declared that police officers can, under the guise of “reasonable suspicion,” stop cars and question drivers based solely on anonymous tips, no matter how dubious, and whether or not they themselves witnessed any troubling behavior. This ruling came on the heels of a ruling by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Westhoven that driving too carefully, with a rigid posture, taking a scenic route, and having acne are sufficient reasons for a police officer to suspect you of doing something illegal, detain you, search your car, and arrest you—even if you’ve done nothing illegal to warrant the stop in the first place.
Secret Service agents are not accountable for their actions, as long as they’re done in the name of security. In Wood v. Moss (2014), the Court granted “qualified immunity” to Secret Service officials who relocated anti-Bush protesters, despite concerns raised that the protesters’ First Amendment right to freely speak, assemble, and petition their government leaders had been violated. These decisions, part of a recent trend toward granting government officials “qualified immunity”—they are not accountable for their actions—in lawsuits over alleged constitutional violations, merely incentivize government officials to violate constitutional rights without fear of repercussion.
Citizens only have a right to remain silent if they assert it. The Supreme Court ruled in Salinas v. Texas (2013) that persons who are not under arrest must specifically invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in order to avoid having their refusal to answer police questions used against them in a subsequent criminal trial. What this ruling says, essentially, is that citizens had better know what their rights are and understand when those rights are being violated, because the government is no longer going to be held responsible for informing you of those rights before violating them. Read more…