Chucktshoes

If I understand local events correctly, right now there is no emission testing in Shelby County. Prior to the end of June it was only required by Memphis City residents and was funded by the city. They chose to end funding (cause we are broke) and turn it over to the county. Shelby county said "we don't want to pay for it either" and refused to take it over. Now it is up to the state and that looks like it will take at least 1-2 years to implement. Charlie Foxtrot as always.

As far as the policeman's behavior... Judging by modern standards and the current status quo of our culture, I would say that the policeman struck quite the good balance between checking out a potential threat and not violating citizens' rights. However, if you cut out the emotionality and flawed thinking regarding firearms in our culture for a moment, you start to remember that openly carrying a rifle strapped to the shoulder should not mean that you have criminal intent. In fact, some would view it that concealing a firearm would mean that you are more likely to have malicious intent because you plan to suddenly brandish and commit a crime. What I would love to see is a climate where the police don't stop someone open carrying a rifle at all. Short of that, it would be nice if it at least went like this: ] Officer: "Can I ask why you're carrying a rifle down the sidewalk, today?" Citizen: "I'm just exercising my right to bear arms, sir." Officer: "Ah....One of those guys. Okay, just promise me one thing..." Citizen: "What's that?" Officer: "If zombies attack while you are here open carrying....Head shots.....Ammo is gonna be issue, so don't waste any on center mass." That would give the activist guys nothing to whine about and they would likely get bored of such videos. ;) There is a metric crap-ton of truth here.

My condolences.

Probably because it is irrelevant & diversionary? Not really, it goes to standing and credibility.

What a couple of flippin' morons. Kudos to the officer for remaining as calm as he did throughout the encounter. Damn hippies should face child abuse charges for wrapping the poor kid in tie dye. That's just wrong.

Just gonna leave this here. A legal analysis of Jay-Z's "99 Problems". http://slu.edu/Documents/law/Law Journal/Archives/LJ56-2_Mason_Article.pdf

I am one of those who has more than a couple of tattoos. I have several on my forearms but I understood when I got them that I would possibly have to cover them if need be for employment. As far as the expense, it can vary greatly and you can usually tell who spent a lot of money on their ink and who didn't with a quick glance. Good work isn't cheap, cheap work isn't good. I'm a fan of the art form and if given a choice, I am much more likely to spend $500 on a tattoo than a gun.

Nothing good can come from that. I know the boy is innocent, but it needs to go to the jury. This. A directed verdict would be a bad, bad, bad thing for everyone. A jury must return the not guilty verdict.

You could install a lo-pro gas block and then install a FSP with the cap etc at the mid length position.

:lol: think they realized they have landed in a shitstorm yet?

There are plenty of examples of municipalities paying out because of lawsuits arising from civil rights violations by officers in cases like this. Also, I wonder what the odds are about a defense attorney being able to use this video as evidence to impinge upon the reliability of a RCSO K9 alert signal when trying suppress evidence that followed on from such an alert? The false positive alert is pretty damn flagrant in this video.

With a shitbag officer who got but hurt the kid did no more than he was required to instead of bowing to his authoritah. The kid may have been looking for trouble, but Deputy Ross and those that assisted him (like the K9 handler) were under no obligation to provide it. They chose to act in an unprofessional and possibly illegal manner that has now opened up the RCSO to a possible lawsuit. If any of the residents of Rutherford County want to lay blame for their tax dollars having to defend a lawsuit and possibly pay out a judgement/settlement, then they have to look no further than Deputy Ross and his accomplices that night.

The OP found it on Reddit, I believe your tense may be wrong.;)

Can't you just smell all the freedom?

Nothing that anyone outside of the NSA would know about, at least not until it was too late...

Considering the militarization of police departments, how can one tell the difference betwixt the two anymore?

I don't see why you should worry about if animal control would get upset, it isn't like the honey badger is gonna give a s#!+.

Pffft! A warrant? Why you gotta be giving these hard working cops a hard time about such a trivial matter as that? They wouldn't do stuff like kick down people's doors and shoot dogs if it wasn't in the best interest of your safety, so why you gotta be busting their balls about this?

There are no redeeming qualities. I've lived there some, married one girl from there, hung out there even more, and still have family there. I have a lot of friends there too, from Chicago to the southern tip. With all that said, the state itself is the sorriest, most corrupt POS in the union, and always has been. Preach it brother!

Not quite a happy ending, but still entirely acceptable. :lol:

And what little they do is usually not correct. This so much truer than most people realize.

http://reason.com/archives/2013/07/04/a-not-so-happy-fourth-of-july Do you have more personal liberty today than on the Fourth of July 2012? When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he used language that has become iconic. He wrote that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not only did he write those words, but the first Congress adopted them unanimously, and they are still the law of the land today. By acknowledging that our rights are inalienable, Jefferson's words and the first federal statute recognize that our rights come from our humanity -- from within us -- and not from the government. The government the Framers gave us was not one that had the power and ability to decide how much freedom each of us should have, but rather one in which we individually and then collectively decided how much power the government should have. That, of course, is also recognized in the Declaration, wherein Jefferson wrote that the government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. To what governmental powers may the governed morally consent in a free society? We can consent to the powers necessary to protect us from force and fraud, and to the means of revenue to pay for a government to exercise those powers. But no one can consent to the diminution of anyone else's natural rights, because, as Jefferson wrote and the Congress enacted, they are inalienable. Just as I cannot morally consent to give the government the power to take your freedom of speech or travel or privacy, you cannot consent to give the government the power to take mine. This is the principle of the natural law: We all have areas of human behavior in which each of us is sovereign and for the exercise of which we do not need the government's permission. Those areas are immune from government interference. That is at least the theory of the Declaration of Independence, and that is the basis for our 237-year-old American experiment in limited government, and it is the system to which everyone who works for the government today pledges fidelity. Regrettably, today we have the opposite of what the Framers gave us. Today we have a government that alone decides how much wealth we can retain, how much free expression we can exercise, how much privacy we can enjoy. And since the Fourth of July 2012, freedom has been diminished. In the past year, all branches of the federal government have combined to diminish personal freedoms, in obvious and in subtle ways. In the case of privacy, we now know that the federal government has the ability to read all of our texts and emails and listen to all of our telephone calls -- mobile and landline -- and can do so without complying with the Constitution's requirements for a search warrant. We now know that President Obama authorized this, federal judges signed off on this, and select members of Congress knew of this, but all were sworn to secrecy, and so none could discuss it. And we only learned of this because a young former spy risked his life, liberty and property to reveal it. In the past year, Obama admitted that he ordered the CIA in Virginia to use a drone to kill two Americans in Yemen, one of whom was a 16-year-old boy. He did so because the boy's father, who was with him at the time of the murders, was encouraging militants to wage war against the U.S. He wasn't waging war, according to the president; he was encouraging it. Simultaneously with this, the president claimed he can use a drone to kill whomever he wants, so long as the person is posing an active threat to the U.S., is difficult to arrest and fits within guidelines that the president himself has secretly written to govern himself. In the past year, the Supreme Court has ruled that if you are in police custody and fail to assert your right to remain silent, the police at the time of trial can ask the jury to infer that you are guilty. This may seem like a technical ruling about who can say what to whom in a courtroom, but it is in truth a radical break from the past. Everyone knows that we all have the natural and constitutionally guaranteed right to silence. And anyone in the legal community knows that judges for generations have told jurors that they may construe nothing with respect to guilt or innocence from the exercise of that right. No longer. Today, you remain silent at your peril. In the past year, the same Supreme Court has ruled that not only can you be punished for silence, but you can literally be forced to open your mouth. The court held that upon arrest -- not conviction, but arrest -- the police can force you to open your mouth so they can swab the inside of it and gather DNA material from you. Put aside the legal truism that an arrest is evidence of nothing and can and does come about for flimsy reasons; DNA is the gateway to personal data about us all. Its involuntary extraction has been insulated by the Fourth Amendment's requirements of relevance and probable cause of crime. No longer. Today, if you cross the street outside of a crosswalk, get ready to open your mouth for the police. The litany of the loss of freedom is sad and unconstitutional and irreversible. The government does whatever it can to retain its power, and it continues so long as it can get away with it. It can listen to your phone calls, read your emails, seize your DNA and challenge your silence, all in violation of the Constitution. Bitterly and ironically, the government Jefferson wrought is proving the accuracy of Jefferson's prediction that in the long march of history, government grows and liberty shrinks. Somewhere Jefferson is weeping. Happy Fourth of July 2013.

If stating the trugh forces the comparrison, so be it. I'm getting really tired of so-called "freedom loving" people liking the Constitutin when things go their way but throwing around words like "tyranny" when people use the Constitution in precisely the way it was designed. I've see real tyranny...99.99% of the people in this country don't have a clue what tyranny actually is. This is true, and you are apparently one of them. I look at the state of our nation today and I see tyranny and instead of people standing against it on principle, I find folks like you who are only upset that their brand of tyrant isn't in charge.

Do you have even a remote clue how insulting it is to insinuate that someone who has worn the uniform for eight years (active) and still does in a minor way is a “communist”. If you’ve served you should understand that, if you haven’t then you’ll never understand which is a pity. I’m not talking about “committees” and you damn well know it…frankly it’s pretty disingenuous of you to purposely mislead people by claiming that I am. Of course it's alwasy easier to throw insults around than to actually discuss an issue isn't it. The VOTERS voting in what laws they want to have is not a “committee”; it’s called democracy…voting in representatives who then pass laws the community wants is called a representative democracy. If you don’t like that process then too bad because that IS the process set up by our Constitution. A lot of people who throw around words like "tyranny" will concurrently proclaim how much they honor and respect and want to follow the Constitution but it seems that they only honor and respect the Constitution when things go the way THEY think things sould be done. :rolleyes: If you find the correlation between your brand of authoritarianism and the commie's brand as drawn by Richard so insulting, maybe the solution is to stop acting in a manner that draws such comparisons in the first place?