Keep your papers ready to be produced immediately or it's a tazering

"Matthew T. Russotto" > wrote in message
t...
> In article >,
> Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
> >
> >To be smart, one should always have their driver's license on them, and
> >their registration and proof of insurance in a small wallet that can be
kept
> >in the glove compartment or center console compartment within the
vehicle.
> >Then, when going for the license and registration/proof of insurance,
tell
> >the officer something like: "I'm reaching for my wallet to get my
license",
> >then get the license and give it to the officer. Then say something like
> >"I'm going to open this center console compartment to get the
registration
> >and proof of insurance", then get it and give the registration/proof of
> >insurance to the officer. Don't give them any reason to suspect
resistance.
> >Don't give them any reason to think there is any sort of threat.
>
> Just roll over, cringe, and show your belly.

Clearly, you just don't get it. The above is about not causing the officer
to believe there is a threat that one may be reaching for a weapon!

It really is not that hard to understand: suddenly reaching into a glove box
or center console compartment without telling the officer what is being
retrieved could very well cause the officer to think one is reaching for a
weapon. If the officer thinks one is reaching for a weapon, the officer will
justifiably think their life is in danger. More than likely, an officer who
feels their life is in danger will not wait to actually see if there is
actually weapon before they decide on the level of force necessary to defend
themselves.

In contrast, by telling the officer what is being retrieved and where it is
being retrieved from before actually retrieving the documentation, the
officer will not perceive an immediate threat, although they will still
watch carefully as the compartment is opened and the documentation is
retrieved.

However, the choice is yours to make how you want to deal with a police
officer. As for me, I choose *NOT* to give a police officer any reason to
believe they may have to use force.

"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 22:42:13 -0800, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
> > wrote:
>
> >"Matthew T. Russotto" > wrote in message
> et...
> >> In article >,
> >> Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >To be smart, one should always have their driver's license on them,
and
> >> >their registration and proof of insurance in a small wallet that can
be
> >kept
> >> >in the glove compartment or center console compartment within the
> >vehicle.
> >> >Then, when going for the license and registration/proof of insurance,
> >tell
> >> >the officer something like: "I'm reaching for my wallet to get my
> >license",
> >> >then get the license and give it to the officer. Then say something
like
> >> >"I'm going to open this center console compartment to get the
> >registration
> >> >and proof of insurance", then get it and give the registration/proof
of
> >> >insurance to the officer. Don't give them any reason to suspect
> >resistance.
> >> >Don't give them any reason to think there is any sort of threat.
> >>
> >> Just roll over, cringe, and show your belly.
> >
> >Clearly, you just don't get it. The above is about not causing the
officer
> >to believe there is a threat that one may be reaching for a weapon!
> >
> >It really is not that hard to understand: suddenly reaching into a glove
box
> >or center console compartment without telling the officer what is being
> >retrieved could very well cause the officer to think one is reaching for
a
> >weapon. If the officer thinks one is reaching for a weapon, the officer
will
> >justifiably think their life is in danger. More than likely, an officer
who
> >feels their life is in danger will not wait to actually see if there is
> >actually weapon before they decide on the level of force necessary to
defend
> >themselves.
> >
> >In contrast, by telling the officer what is being retrieved and where it
is
> >being retrieved from before actually retrieving the documentation, the
> >officer will not perceive an immediate threat, although they will still
> >watch carefully as the compartment is opened and the documentation is
> >retrieved.
> >
> >However, the choice is yours to make how you want to deal with a police
> >officer. As for me, I choose *NOT* to give a police officer any reason to
> >believe they may have to use force.
> >
>
> So according to you, when the officer asks you for your license and
> registration, opening your glove box or console to get the
> registration is a movement that will somehow be a surprise and
> possible threat to the officer and make him tase you. Sounds like BS
> to me. 90% of people keep their registration in the glove box or
> console and the officer will have seen people opening them to retrieve
> the documents many times in his first few months on the street. If
> that makes him fearful he needs to get a different job.

Since I don't know for sure how a particular officer may react, or how long
a particular officer has actually been on the job, I choose not to risk
surprising the officer.

Others, of course, may vary.

In article >, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:

> It really is not that hard to understand: suddenly reaching into a glove box
> or center console compartment without telling the officer what is being
> retrieved could very well cause the officer to think one is reaching for a
> weapon. If the officer thinks one is reaching for a weapon, the officer will
> justifiably think their life is in danger. More than likely, an officer who
> feels their life is in danger will not wait to actually see if there is
> actually weapon before they decide on the level of force necessary to defend
> themselves.

Roadside robbery is a dangerous profession, maybe they should consider a
different line of work?

> In contrast, by telling the officer what is being retrieved and where it is
> being retrieved from before actually retrieving the documentation, the
> officer will not perceive an immediate threat, although they will still
> watch carefully as the compartment is opened and the documentation is
> retrieved.

I see it more as slave conditioning of the masses. Don't do anything without
permission or you may be hurt. The vast majority isn't a threat to the
government employeed armed tax collector, those who are will just wait
for 'permission' and draw the gun instead of an insurance card.

In article >, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:

> Since I don't know for sure how a particular officer may react, or how long
> a particular officer has actually been on the job, I choose not to risk
> surprising the officer.

And yet it's 'wacky' when I say people are being conditioned to be
submissive.....

In article >, Scott in SoCal wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 07:46:48 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> It really is not that hard to understand: suddenly reaching into a glove box
>>> or center console compartment without telling the officer what is being
>>> retrieved could very well cause the officer to think one is reaching for a
>>> weapon. If the officer thinks one is reaching for a weapon, the officer will
>>> justifiably think their life is in danger. More than likely, an officer who
>>> feels their life is in danger will not wait to actually see if there is
>>> actually weapon before they decide on the level of force necessary to defend
>>> themselves.
>>
>>Roadside robbery is a dangerous profession, maybe they should consider a
>>different line of work?

> So why don't you just keep a gun under the seat and shoot the next
> robber that pulls you over? It would save you from a tazing and all
> the other hassles of a traffic stop.

I'm not a killer. I don't even squish insects Icatch them in a box and
put them outside.

What separates them from a mugger and other criminals in manny cases is a
government license and employment. Government knows apparently knows
this as it continues to seek to disarm people and jail them for
defending their home and property against even unlicensed thieves.

On Dec 5, 11:19 pm, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 22:42:13 -0800, "Daniel W. Rouse Jr."
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >"Matthew T. Russotto" > wrote in message
> et...
> >> In article >,
> >> Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
>
> >> >To be smart, one should always have their driver's license on them, and
> >> >their registration and proof of insurance in a small wallet that can be
> >kept
> >> >in the glove compartment or center console compartment within the
> >vehicle.
> >> >Then, when going for the license and registration/proof of insurance,
> >tell
> >> >the officer something like: "I'm reaching for my wallet to get my
> >license",
> >> >then get the license and give it to the officer. Then say something like
> >> >"I'm going to open this center console compartment to get the
> >registration
> >> >and proof of insurance", then get it and give the registration/proof of
> >> >insurance to the officer. Don't give them any reason to suspect
> >resistance.
> >> >Don't give them any reason to think there is any sort of threat.
>
> >> Just roll over, cringe, and show your belly.
>
> >Clearly, you just don't get it. The above is about not causing the officer
> >to believe there is a threat that one may be reaching for a weapon!
>
> >It really is not that hard to understand: suddenly reaching into a glove box
> >or center console compartment without telling the officer what is being
> >retrieved could very well cause the officer to think one is reaching for a
> >weapon. If the officer thinks one is reaching for a weapon, the officer will
> >justifiably think their life is in danger. More than likely, an officer who
> >feels their life is in danger will not wait to actually see if there is
> >actually weapon before they decide on the level of force necessary to defend
> >themselves.
>
> >In contrast, by telling the officer what is being retrieved and where it is
> >being retrieved from before actually retrieving the documentation, the
> >officer will not perceive an immediate threat, although they will still
> >watch carefully as the compartment is opened and the documentation is
> >retrieved.
>
> >However, the choice is yours to make how you want to deal with a police
> >officer. As for me, I choose *NOT* to give a police officer any reason to
> >believe they may have to use force.
>
> So according to you, when the officer asks you for your license and
> registration, opening your glove box or console to get the
> registration is a movement that will somehow be a surprise and
> possible threat to the officer and make him tase you. Sounds like BS
> to me. 90% of people keep their registration in the glove box or
> console and the officer will have seen people opening them to retrieve
> the documents many times in his first few months on the street. If
> that makes him fearful he needs to get a different job.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If you watch any of the 'cop' shows, you have seen it done at almost
every stop, particularly ones where the cop thinks it is a 'high risk
stop'. It's not about 'fearful', it's about 'procedure'.

Harry K

On Dec 5, 9:30 pm, (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
> In article >,
> Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
>
> >"Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> Woman without her papers in order for immediate inspection gets tazed:
>
> >> via fark.com
>
> >>http://www.statesman.com/news/mplayer/other/32386?f=1
>
> >Unfortunately, the truth of the matter is that it is best not to confront,
> >even verbally, a police officer that is already aggressive and will
> >immediately use force. Just do what the cop is asking, and file a complaint
> >or lawsuit later.
>
> If you want to be victimized by the cop AND by the legal system.
>
> >It's really the only solution, unless one already knows
> >they can physically withstand potentially multiple 5 second/50,000 volt
> >shocks.
>
> Might makes right.
>
> >But, the number of situations that are clearly not life-threatening
> >situations and that have resulted in Taser usage should result in the
> >officers tried for attempted murder. Currently, they are only investigated
> >by the internal affairs, and the investigations seem to be only expedited
> >when the video is available for viewing on the Internet.
>
> Fancy that.
> --
> There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
> result in a fully-depreciated one.

According to you, you will lose if you complain to the the higher ups
or even get a lawyer. So your solution is to pick a way so you lose
big time on the side of the road AND lose when you complain about it.
Looks like a **** poor choice to me. I would prefer to lose just once
and that without getting hurt doing it.

Harry K

In article >,
Harry K > wrote:
>On Dec 5, 9:30 pm, (Matthew T. Russotto)
>wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
>>
>> >"Brent P" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> >> Woman without her papers in order for immediate inspection gets tazed:
>>
>> >> via fark.com
>>
>> >>http://www.statesman.com/news/mplayer/other/32386?f=1
>>
>> >Unfortunately, the truth of the matter is that it is best not to confront,
>> >even verbally, a police officer that is already aggressive and will
>> >immediately use force. Just do what the cop is asking, and file a complaint
>> >or lawsuit later.
>>
>> If you want to be victimized by the cop AND by the legal system.
>>
>> >It's really the only solution, unless one already knows
>> >they can physically withstand potentially multiple 5 second/50,000 volt
>> >shocks.
>>
>> Might makes right.
>>
>> >But, the number of situations that are clearly not life-threatening
>> >situations and that have resulted in Taser usage should result in the
>> >officers tried for attempted murder. Currently, they are only investigated
>> >by the internal affairs, and the investigations seem to be only expedited
>> >when the video is available for viewing on the Internet.
>>
>> Fancy that.
>
>According to you, you will lose if you complain to the the higher ups
>or even get a lawyer. So your solution is to pick a way so you lose
>big time on the side of the road AND lose when you complain about it.
>Looks like a **** poor choice to me. I would prefer to lose just once
>and that without getting hurt doing it.

You still lose twice. It's just that the first time, you immediately
surrender.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article >, Scott in SoCal wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 09:06:01 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, Scott in SoCal wrote:
>>> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 07:46:48 -0600,
>>> (Brent P) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article >, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It really is not that hard to understand: suddenly reaching into a glove box
>>>>> or center console compartment without telling the officer what is being
>>>>> retrieved could very well cause the officer to think one is reaching for a
>>>>> weapon. If the officer thinks one is reaching for a weapon, the officer will
>>>>> justifiably think their life is in danger. More than likely, an officer who
>>>>> feels their life is in danger will not wait to actually see if there is
>>>>> actually weapon before they decide on the level of force necessary to defend
>>>>> themselves.
>>>>
>>>>Roadside robbery is a dangerous profession, maybe they should consider a
>>>>different line of work?
>>
>>> So why don't you just keep a gun under the seat and shoot the next
>>> robber that pulls you over? It would save you from a tazing and all
>>> the other hassles of a traffic stop.
>>
>>I'm not a killer. I don't even squish insects Icatch them in a box and
>>put them outside.
>
> OK, then why do you stop when they turn on their disco lights? Why not
> just floor it and run away? I would certainly do that if a robber was
> chasing me...

That bit about being government employed.

On Dec 6, 9:20 am, (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
> In article >,
> Harry K > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 5, 9:30 pm, (Matthew T. Russotto)
> >wrote:
> >> In article >,
> >> Daniel W. Rouse Jr. > wrote:
>
> >> >"Brent P" > wrote in message
> >> ...
>
> >> >> Woman without her papers in order for immediate inspection gets tazed:
>
> >> >> via fark.com
>
> >> >>http://www.statesman.com/news/mplayer/other/32386?f=1
>
> >> >Unfortunately, the truth of the matter is that it is best not to confront,
> >> >even verbally, a police officer that is already aggressive and will
> >> >immediately use force. Just do what the cop is asking, and file a complaint
> >> >or lawsuit later.
>
> >> If you want to be victimized by the cop AND by the legal system.
>
> >> >It's really the only solution, unless one already knows
> >> >they can physically withstand potentially multiple 5 second/50,000 volt
> >> >shocks.
>
> >> Might makes right.
>
> >> >But, the number of situations that are clearly not life-threatening
> >> >situations and that have resulted in Taser usage should result in the
> >> >officers tried for attempted murder. Currently, they are only investigated
> >> >by the internal affairs, and the investigations seem to be only expedited
> >> >when the video is available for viewing on the Internet.
>
> >> Fancy that.
>
> >According to you, you will lose if you complain to the the higher ups
> >or even get a lawyer. So your solution is to pick a way so you lose
> >big time on the side of the road AND lose when you complain about it.
> >Looks like a **** poor choice to me. I would prefer to lose just once
> >and that without getting hurt doing it.
>
> You still lose twice. It's just that the first time, you immediately
> surrender.
> --
But walk away from it unhurt. Other than _hopefully_ making a scene
that gets to the public attention, resisting is a zero win game with
possibility injury.

Again: Once the cop has decided you will comply, you will lose and
possibly lose big time. Resisting hoping he will change his mind is
not on the table - it ain't a gonna happen.

Harry K
Harry K