Thread: Sad Commentary on Life and Balance.

Originally Posted by Tommy

This, spare us the bUt iF yOu haVe noThInG tO hIdE nonsense, give up your own rights by all means, but don't expect others to

Being polite and cooperating when it will cause no one harm is not giving up your rights. And regardless, we always maintain the ability to enforce our rights when we really do need to. No one likes a smart arse, so why be one for no good reason.

Originally Posted by Tahr

Being polite and cooperating when it will cause no one harm is not giving up your rights. And regardless, we always maintain the ability to enforce our rights when we really do need to. No one likes a smart arse, so why be one for no good reason.

There's nothing smartarse about refusing a warrantless search when you've done nothing wrong. In fact, trying on a warrantless search on the assumption that people are unsure of their rights, that would be pretty smartarse carryon wouldn't it?

Originally Posted by Tommy

There's nothing smartarse about refusing a warrantless search when you've done nothing wrong. In fact, trying on a warrantless search on the assumption that people are unsure of their rights, that would be pretty smartarse carryon wouldn't it?

[QUOTE]Quote Originally Posted by Tahr View Post
Being polite and cooperating when it will cause no one harm is not giving up your rights. And regardless, we always maintain the ability to enforce our rights when we really do need to. No one likes a smart arse, so why be one for no good reason./QUOTE]

I think you are both correct. Me personally most days Id just say sure, look away. But if I caught an attitude or felt the motive was insincere, it would be more likely to be a no with the question Reason?

[QUOTE=whanahuia;1646126]

Quote Originally Posted by Tahr View Post
Being polite and cooperating when it will cause no one harm is not giving up your rights. And regardless, we always maintain the ability to enforce our rights when we really do need to. No one likes a smart arse, so why be one for no good reason./QUOTE]

I think you are both correct. Me personally most days Id just say sure, look away. But if I caught an attitude or felt the motive was insincere, it would be more likely to be a no with the question Reason?

Yes, this is where I sit. As I said we can choose to waive our rights and choose to enforce them. It's contextual and its a continuum. Arguing with the Police when you have nothing to lose seems pointless and confrontational to me. And from my experience will make things worse rather than better. You need to know when to give a little, when to give a little back, and when to dig your toes in. I expect that some Police don't understand the gun laws like they should, and that most gun owners know even less. Hardly a recipe for a black and white conversation on the side of the road.

Originally Posted by Tahr

Being polite and cooperating when it will cause no one harm is not giving up your rights. And regardless, we always maintain the ability to enforce our rights when we really do need to. No one likes a smart arse, so why be one for no good reason.

Cooperating with an unlawful police search?
This is an exceedingly slippery slope.

I'd say that a constable trying to do a warrantless search is not polite. If they have a whine then that's them being a smart arse.

I sit in both camps here. I along with a lot of others I imagine, seen all of those kids from the states where they start arguing with the coppers about their rights and it usually makes it worse regardless of it being right. I do understand it though.
The last thing we want is it happening a lot, nearly everyone complying because they are doing nothing wrong and next thing you know a few years down the track the rules get changed on the sly because we were all doing it anyway.
The next worst thing is they don't change the rules but you get a copper expecting compliance just because, someone says no and it gets pear shaped.

I believe the threshold for using search and surveillance act powers, is they need to reasonably suspect that you are in commission of a crime against the arms act, or that you are preparing to commit one. It's not meant to be just a piece of legislation they can use to nullify all of your rights.

Originally Posted by Beavis

I believe the threshold for using search and surveillance act powers, is they need to reasonably suspect that you are in commission of a crime against the arms act, or that you are preparing to commit one. It's not meant to be just a piece of legislation they can use to nullify all of your rights.

I agree.

The social contract is that everyone obeys the law.
You, me, the Government AND the Police.

It's not complicated.

I think, at the end pf the day, you act how you want to act, the police will act how they want to act. If it comes to it, a Judge will sort out who is right and who is wrong.

Originally Posted by inglishill

I think, at the end pf the day, you act how you want to act, the police will act how they want to act. If it comes to it, a Judge will sort out who is right and who is wrong.

At great personal cost to you, and non the police

Originally Posted by imaca

At great personal cost to you, and non the police

Not necessarily. I realise my comment lacked clarity. If you know what the Police are doing is testing the bounds of what they are lawfully able to do, or are outright being unlawful, then the comment stands. It was not a 'Do as you will" comment

And to add. If I was a cop on my way home from a shift of dealing with thugs, domestic violence and road deaths and some smart prick started arguing and spouting gun law to me I would want to drag them out of the car and taser them. Even if they were correct. I would make a bad cop

Originally Posted by Tahr

And to add. If I was a cop on my way home from a shift of dealing with thugs, domestic violence and road deaths and some smart prick started arguing and spouting gun law to me I would want to drag them out of the car and taser them. Even if they were correct. I would make a bad cop

I think the best cops are borderline crims themselves