JayC

And you think those same politicians won't place even stricter restrictions on the military when dealing with US citizens?   In a conventional war, our military is top of the line bar none...  but you're not talking about a conventional war...  you're talking about an insurgency on home soil...  you can not turn the military loose and allow them to break things in that environment, without at the exact same time turning more of the population against the government forces.   No government in the last 200 years has survived a rebellion where 5% or more of the population gives it support (not fighting just looking the other way and providing resources to the fight).  What makes you think we're special and immune to that historical reality?    

Dave,   It's completely within reason that we would see another civil war or revolution from within the population again...  It only takes 3-12% of the population of any country to rise up in support of rebellion to overthrow any government.  Because of our melting pot with diverse ethnic and cultural differences, it's likely that we're much closer to the 3% end of the spectrum than the 12%.   Our military was barely able to handle 10,000 illiterate goat herders in a country smaller than Texas...  how on earth could they handle 100,000 or 1,000,000 rebelling in a country this size?  Oh yeah and unlike in Iraq the 'terrorists' these speak the same language, know the culture inside and out, and the entire supply system of the military and government is at risk of attack.  And if you think Green on Blue attacks cause our military to become paralyzed, just imagine blue on blue attacks.  Oh yeah, and a good number of the military will flat out refuse to fire upon their own countrymen, and some will defect to the 'terrorist' side.   Now that is not to say any of this would be a 'good thing', only that the military and government can't win against a population that decides it's time they go.    

Government make work...  got to inflate those employment stats somehow.  

OS,   My point was if the local ordinance references 1351, which it is my understanding there was no 1351 in 1986, that means the law was passed or amended after the cut off date for grandfathering in local laws.    

There is another out in Bellevue which is on State owned land that also can't legally be posted, since Metro doesn't have complete control of the park (land owned by the state), and as such can't get both entities to agree to the posting.  My guess is if we started digging really carefully we'd find other parks around the state which are sitting on state owned land, and can't legally be posted anymore.  

If the city ordinance mentions 39-17-1351 is was likely passed well after 1986, and therefore is preempted by state law.  Not that I would want to be the test case either.    

Your blood pressure will thank you :)    

Wow, that is an old thread you managed to jump into...  but you're giving out bad information...  While I wouldn't recommend wearing a HCP badge, you need to go back and reread TN law concerning badges, none of the HCP badges I've seen violate the law in anyway shape or form by themselves.   And keep in mind that 39-16-301 requires that you be engaged in an activity that is ordinarily and customarily an activity established by law as a law enforcement activity... on top of causing another to believe you are a law enforcement officer.   So sitting down and eating a burger with a badge on doesn't violate that law...  Walking down the street with one doesn't...  Trying to pull somebody over and arrest them would ;)   My understanding that there is only one such arrest in TN involving a carry badge in Knoxville in 2009 and the impersonating charge was dropped.  So while it's a horribly bad idea IMHO to wear one, it doesn't appear as if your warning is based on the law or fact.    

The real question is when does he get his carry permit back? :)    

The SA needs to be going to jail...  not only did she spend 350k of tax payers money increasing the lead prosecutors and her own pensions and trying to hide it while this investigation was going on...   She also fired the IT Director for turning evidence over to the Zimmerman defense that her office intentionally tried to hide...  She waiting to fire him until after the trial went to the jury yesterday.    

I suspect some folks will be eating crow tomorrow...  GZ was found not guilty of all charges ;)

The risk isn't limited to Memphis...  There is a lot of zimmerman and zimmerman riot traffic on twitter coming from Jackson, and Nashville as well.  

We import almost no Middle Eastern oil, if we'd build the new Keystone pipeline it would bring in more oil than we import from the middle east....  So why exactly are we there?    

Unfortunately it's like that in more places than just Florida.  In what debate setting does one side gets the opening statement, and the closing statement?    

In this case it reminds me of how criminals look when they notice they're being recorded.  

I'm sorry but that just isn't true :)  There are a lot of normal business people who have a relationship with more than a single lawyer, or even a single law firm.  I personally wrote checks to 4 different law firms last month, and that isn't out of the ordinary.  And none of those issues are any crazy stuff :)  Just run of the mill business.    

First rule in government, the farther you get away from the people who are represented, the more incompetent and wasteful government gets.  And you're right, the TSA 'security' theater is a whole another level of waste and incompetence...  but we shouldn't neglect the waste and incompetence at the local level just because the Feds and perfected it at the national level.  

Deputy Ross has been with the RCSO for well over 10 years, how much more seasoned does a deputy need to be and not act like we saw in the video?  He clearly didn't have RAS or PC that a crime had been committed.  Case law clearly says not rolling down a window is not RAS of a crime.  BTW he also violated RCSO DUI Checkpoint SOPs, which tell the deputies even if a driver refuses to roll down the window and answer any questions they can't use that as RAS to detain or search the vehicle.  Unless that SOP has had some major re-writes in the last 5 years.   I'm not sure he (or the rest of us) should stop with a formal complaint to the Sheriff, I'd say that the TBI needs to be investigating this case not the Sheriff, while the detainment is iffy at best, the actions of the 'dog handler' and the search sure look criminal to me, and it looks like they knew they were out of bounds because of how they reacted to the camera.  That shows me clear guilt on the part of both deputies.   And I agree the more I think about it the K9 deputy likely has a lot more liability from this tape...  My understanding is that K9 'searches' have paperwork that is filled out under the penalty of perjury?  I'd be willing to bet that paperwork could very well be a smoking gun of perjury.     At the very least I believe this video would now be required Brady disclosure anytime the K9 officer ever testified in the future...  Wouldn't you agree?  And my understanding is that a Brady disclosure is a near death sentence for an officers career?  

More and more I think about it, the dog handler probably has some criminal liability sitting out there...  I'd be very curious to see what his paperwork says on this search and if he mentions it was a 'weak' alert...  I'm curious to see what all the paperwork from that stop says...     Just imagine the questions you could ask him under oath...  how many times have you had a weak alert and still performed a search without solid probable cause...  There is no good answer to those questions.

Here is my 2 cents worth...  Deputy Ross needs to be arrested for kidnapping under the color of law and he needs to be judged my a jury of his peers, and if found guilty needs to face the maximum penalty under the law.  He clearly violated this guys rights and did so knowingly without PC (PC is the required level for a DUI checkpoint).  He used the threat of force while armed to forcibly detain this citizen under the color of law which meets all the requirements for kidnapping under both TN and Federal law.   We all should be calling and emailing the Rutherford County Sheriff to at the very least encourage him to fire this deputy who can't seem to handle situations where no crime has been committed.  It's clear that Deputy Ross and the dog handler knew they were doing something wrong, because they stopped talking once they noticed the camera, and turned it so it could no longer view them...  That to me is a clear sign of their guilt.  If an officer can't handle a rude citizen without violating both the law, civil rights and department policy he should no longer be wearing a uniform.   Also, my guess is that dog handlers days are done...  any future case where he is the K9 officer, the defense is going to play that video over and over again and impeach his credibility.

A fraction of 1% per driver stopped and harassed.  It's about the worse use of manpower/tax dollars to stop drunk drivers that any idiot could come up with.   It looks good to the sheeple public, and all the officers involved get overtime paid for by the federal government...  which is the only reason we have these types of checkpoints.      

It's been 2 years, the real question is where are all the criminal charges?  

Yes, the Judge can, unlikely, but possible.  I believe it's normal for the defense to make this request at this point in virtually all trials.    

Suspending the constitution, suspends the powers granted to whomever suspended the constitution.  Anything done by the government at that point is by it's very nature is an illegal act...     And our rights don't come from the constitution, and they can not be suspended legally by the government, because they existed before the government.    

And IF such an injury takes place and can be proven then there are civil remedies already in place.  I'm happy to tell others how to live, I just don't advocate the use of arms to force them to follow my instructions ;)   And yes, it's our place to force government (all levels) to behave, there is nothing wrong with severely restricting government...  Because government doesn't have any natural rights, only those powers the framers gave them hundreds of years ago.  So, by telling Turtle Creek, PA (the government) that they can exert powers not granted to it explicitly by the PA Constitution, in no way shape or form damages the natural rights of the people of Turtle Creek, PA.