Encrypt and Lock Your Phone - Go to Jail

[lcpiper]

Because we are on the outside so we don't see the reasoning. Also my personal feelings on it are they don't stand outside my door and force me to let them in, why is the phone my responsibility? You want it, you open it. Like I said we dont know the exact situation but I just feel that the person under investigation should be allowed to assist but not forced to.

OK, well although above I sort of drilled it in with nilepez about how things are versus how he may wish them to be. I need to back off that because I also don't think it's right to try and require that everyone "like it".

Maybe I am a strange type of authoritarian. I believe people need to obey the law and be held accountable to the law. At the same time, I also believe that the law must be able to "change with the times" and how can it change if people are not allowed express themselves in order to support and provoke change.

So nilepez, you fill your hand with whatever you want and I swear, I'll claim it all smells like roses

 

[Darunion]

OK, well although above I sort of drilled it in with nilepez about how things are versus how he may wish them to be. I need to back off that because I also don't think it's right to try and require that everyone "like it".

Maybe I am a strange type of authoritarian. I believe people need to obey the law and be held accountable to the law. At the same time, I also believe that the law must be able to "change with the times" and how can it change if people are not allowed express themselves in order to support and provoke change.

So nilepez, you fill your hand with whatever you want and I swear, I'll claim it all smells like roses

And no system will be perfect, just a filter that will either let more criminals go or imprison more innocents. It will never lie perfectly in the middle, only swing slightly on one side or the other. And depending on the time of day, I am not sure which way is better to swing.

 

[lcpiper]

And no system will be perfect, just a filter that will either let more criminals go or imprison more innocents. It will never lie perfectly in the middle, only swing slightly on one side or the other. And depending on the time of day, I am not sure which way is better to swing.

If we keep up this being reasonable shit we'll kill another good thread.

 

[Private_Ops]

I just lost my phone.... sorry officers

Boating accident.

 

[d3athf1sh]

Uh, if I was accused of child porn or molestation I would provide them every possible proof against it.

so say you're innocent, then you can be charged for another crime relative to whats on your phone, hell whats to say they don't plant something just because they don't like your face. then they're sitting there reading every one of your text messages! just so they can get a good profile on who exactly THEY make you out to be??!!! AND all this is taking place while YOUR happy ass is sitting in a cell down in county. oh yeah, and they're all sitting down there laughing at the d pics you sent to some chick because there's clearly a scab on the side of it!!!! I mean why would you do that???

 

[Ur_Mom]

Get a warrant/subpoena or whatever. Even then, I'll only do it under the advice and under the observation of my lawyer.

Prove I did it. If you need my phone for that, you need to get a judge to write off on it after you provide him probable cause that evidence is on there. And, what they are looking for will be on the warrant.

It sounds like he just gave police the wrong one. No warrant was issued, etc..

It'll be an interesting battle. I hope it sides on the rights of the individual and not give police more power to just do an illegal search and seizure... legally.

 

[Derangel]

When innocent you don't need to hide anything. Simple as that. How can they land me in jail when I haven't committed any crime?

Refusing to show your phone when accused of a serious crime is 99,9% proof of guilt.

Speaking as someone that is currently studying criminal law and just finished college courses on interrogation and evidence gathering: That is incredibly stupid. Any cop that says you not offering up evidence is proof of guilt is lying to your face. No court will allow "they didn't willingly show me stuff" to be mentioned in the court room. The burden of proof is 100% on the police and the prosecutor in criminal cases. The justice system very specifically says that the prosecution must PROVE beyond reasonable suspicion that a person is guilty. You can "Act" guilty as shit, but if there is no proof there is nothing to convict on. Some of what d3athf1sh said also applies. If you willfully hand over information it can be used against you for any crime and any case. If they use a warrant then they are incredibly limited by what is allowed and anything outside of that warrant is inadmissible (at least in specific situations like that, there are ways around that).

 

[RealBeast]

Speaking as someone that is currently studying criminal law and just finished college courses on interrogation and evidence gathering: That is incredibly stupid. Any cop that says you not offering up evidence is proof of guilt is lying to your face. No court will allow "they didn't willingly show me stuff" to be mentioned in the court room. The burden of proof is 100% on the police and the prosecutor in criminal cases. The justice system very specifically says that the prosecution must PROVE beyond reasonable suspicion that a person is guilty. You can "Act" guilty as shit, but if there is no proof there is nothing to convict on. Some of what d3athf1sh said also applies. If you willfully hand over information it can be used against you for any crime and any case. If they use a warrant then they are incredibly limited by what is allowed and anything outside of that warrant is inadmissible (at least in specific situations like that, there are ways around that).

As an attorney in Texas and California, you would be stupid to say a word or cooperate without advice of counsel no matter your guilt. That's the way our system works.

However, as a legal point if there was a legal court ordered subpoena for the code and he did not comply, a jailing for contempt is appropriate.

That said, all child abusers should be in the general population where they will be taken care of according to prisoner rules, which are what they are.

 

[Orddie]

When innocent you don't need to hide anything. Simple as that. How can they land me in jail when I haven't committed any crime?

Refusing to show your phone when accused of a serious crime is 99,9% proof of guilt.

I think your missing a key thing about #Merica. Innocent until proven guilty. The 180 day is most likely for contempt. If this guy really is guilty... chances are they don't need the phone to nail him. Though it will take longer to get to the point of charges.

 

[Derangel]

As an attorney in Texas and California, you would be stupid to say a word or cooperate without advice of counsel no matter your guilt. That's the way our system works.

However, as a legal point if there was a legal court ordered subpoena for the code and he did not comply, a jailing for contempt is appropriate.

That said, all child abusers should be in the general population where they will be taken care of according to prisoner rules, which are what they are.

100% agree on all points. The moment someone is read their rights they should demand a lawyer. Even if a person is innocent and can prove it, law is such a complex thing that a lawyer really is needed to untangle everything and make sure all the rules are followed. Even the best cops can sometimes cross a line, either intentionally or otherwise, and people not well versed in their rights and the limits of law enforcement will be caught unaware.

 

[BinarySynapse]

Several years ago there was an accident in my town involving a black truck. The driver of said truck got pissed off and shot another driver and drove off. The damage done to the truck happened to be on the right front side. Coincidentally, at that time I was driving a black truck that had damage on the right front side consistent with hitting another vehicle (which happened a couple months prior in a hit-and-run case that was still being investigated), and I just happened to be driving down a road on the other side of town a day later. Guess who was almost in handcuffs and soon to be on his way to jail for something he didn't even know had happened. The only thing that got me out of that was that the accident report for the hit-and-run came up while he was running my info.

So imagine that that report didn't exist for whatever reason (I didn't report the accident, the responding officer didn't file the report, or the report was in a different agency's system). I could have allowed them to search my truck; they might have found a gun that I legally owned and was carrying responsibly (was unloaded, locked, etc).

So my having "nothing to hide" would have instantly got me a front seat to a arraignment with an overworked and underpaid PD that wouldn't have given enough shits about me to do more than the bare minimum of telling me to plea no contest and accept 5 years for assault with a deadly weapon instead of burdening him with a trial and risk getting 10 for attempted murder.

 

[Chupachup]

No, I don't trust electronic banking apps.

No, never used ebay. Never sold any piece of my own property before anywhere.

I get my taxes done by a professional.

I already listed above what I use my phone for. Calling/messaging friends and family, playing games, and browsing general websites. I guess I use my phone for a lot less than the average person but so what?

The only problem is that if you use a shared platform product, one of several examples being Google Chrome, the police now have access to ALL of your browser history and bookmarks via device-to-device syncing.

If a potentially questionable link appears in your history, that was not directly accessed from your phone, you just handed them the perfect excuse to request an expansion of their warrant to search your home, business and any other property, where the other device(s) may reside that possibly accessed that link. Any and all devices that have the ability to access that link are to now be made available for forensic inspection which can lead to more "evidence" and potentially more suspects in a never ending and ever mounting cycle.

Officer- Do you have access to friends, family, neighbors or work, computers/smartphones? Does/has anyone you are aware of have/had similar access to yours?
You being honest and helpful- "Yes. Some. Sure. But..."
Officer- We'll need names and contact information for each of them.​

You may actually be clean as a whistle. However, due to your over exuberance at proving same, you have now unwittingly brought previously unknown third parties into an investigation that may possibly see them charged for one or a number of crimes related or not to the initial investigation due to a spurious lead (questionable link) you inadvertently supplied through the main investigation and lead to possibly more questionable activity on their device(s)- so long as there is a verified chain linking probable cause from Point A to B and beyond.

Then all you need is one of those people to mention without prompting, or other evidence to be found, that you had knowledge of, viewed or supplied, certain questionable item(s) and you're back in play and on the defensive.

The proverbial snowball rolling down the side of a mountain...

Your desire to prove your innocence are signs that read, "Make it that much harder for me to prove my innocence!" and "Is there any way I can get some company in here?"

It can never be overstated- ALWAYS request to speak with an attorney before allowing an interrogation/questioning by the authorities to proceed.

 

[B00nie]

Several years ago there was an accident in my town involving a black truck. The driver of said truck got pissed off and shot another driver and drove off. The damage done to the truck happened to be on the right front side. Coincidentally, at that time I was driving a black truck that had damage on the right front side consistent with hitting another vehicle (which happened a couple months prior in a hit-and-run case that was still being investigated), and I just happened to be driving down a road on the other side of town a day later. Guess who was almost in handcuffs and soon to be on his way to jail for something he didn't even know had happened. The only thing that got me out of that was that the accident report for the hit-and-run came up while he was running my info.

So imagine that that report didn't exist for whatever reason (I didn't report the accident, the responding officer didn't file the report, or the report was in a different agency's system). I could have allowed them to search my truck; they might have found a gun that I legally owned and was carrying responsibly (was unloaded, locked, etc).

So my having "nothing to hide" would have instantly got me a front seat to a arraignment with an overworked and underpaid PD that wouldn't have given enough shits about me to do more than the bare minimum of telling me to plea no contest and accept 5 years for assault with a deadly weapon instead of burdening him with a trial and risk getting 10 for attempted murder.

Again a very poor example. A ballistic forensic would have determined in 1 minute from your gun that it was not the gun used in the shooting, clearing you of all further doubt. Similarly if you had a dash cam and could have proven your alibi, it would be stupendously stupid not to present the information to the police.

BUT... if you did do the shooting - you better not let them search the truck!

 

[B00nie]

The only problem is that if you use a shared platform product, one of several examples being Google Chrome, the police now have access to ALL of your browser history and bookmarks via device-to-device syncing.

If a potentially questionable link appears in your history, that was not directly accessed from your phone, you just handed them the perfect excuse to request an expansion of their warrant to search your home, business and any other property, where the other device(s) may reside that possibly accessed that link. Any and all devices that have the ability to access that link are to now be made available for forensic inspection which can lead to more "evidence" and potentially more suspects in a never ending and ever mounting cycle.

Officer- Do you have access to friends, family, neighbors or work, computers/smartphones? Does/has anyone you are aware of have/had similar access to yours?
You being honest and helpful- "Yes. Some. Sure. But..."
Officer- We'll need names and contact information for each of them.​

You may actually be clean as a whistle. However, due to your over exuberance at proving same, you have now unwittingly brought previously unknown third parties into an investigation that may possibly see them charged for one or a number of crimes related or not to the initial investigation due to a spurious lead (questionable link) you inadvertently supplied through the main investigation and lead to possibly more questionable activity on their device(s)- so long as there is a verified chain linking probable cause from Point A to B and beyond.

Then all you need is one of those people to mention without prompting, or other evidence to be found, that you had knowledge of, viewed or supplied, certain questionable item(s) and you're back in play and on the defensive.

The proverbial snowball rolling down the side of a mountain...

Your desire to prove your innocence are signs that read, "Make it that much harder for me to prove my innocence!" and "Is there any way I can get some company in here?"

It can never be overstated- ALWAYS request to speak with an attorney before allowing an interrogation/questioning by the authorities to proceed.

So what you're saying that everyone should always assume that they're a criminal or at the minimum, a family member is one. Check.

We must live in different kind of circles.

 

[nilepez]

so say you're innocent, then you can be charged for another crime relative to whats on your phone, hell whats to say they don't plant something just because they don't like your face. then they're sitting there reading every one of your text messages! just so they can get a good profile on who exactly THEY make you out to be??!!! AND all this is taking place while YOUR happy ass is sitting in a cell down in county. oh yeah, and they're all sitting down there laughing at the d pics you sent to some chick because there's clearly a scab on the side of it!!!! I mean why would you do that???

In BOOnie world, that's OK, because they may catch some pedophiles too.

 

[HoffY]

I guess the difference between me and you is that I trust the government to treat me fairly and I trust the system. You don't. I would hate to live where you live.

Wow. Just wow.

The ignorance is strong with this one. You lack the fundamental ability to understand the world and how it isn't run on magic and rainbows.

 

[BinarySynapse]

Again a very poor example. A ballistic forensic would have determined in 1 minute from your gun that it was not the gun used in the shooting, clearing you of all further doubt. Similarly if you had a dash cam and could have proven your alibi, it would be stupendously stupid not to present the information to the police.

BUT... if you did do the shooting - you better not let them search the truck!

Assuming there was anything at the crime scene to do ballistic analysis with and that the victim wasn't shot with a 9mm, and that the prosecuting office would have put forth any effort to do one,

Assuming further that dash cams were easy to get 15 years ago, and that I would have happened to be driving by a date/time sign around the time of the accident/shooting occurring, and that I would have been far enough away that it would have been infeasible that the crime was committed by me.


I don't know the details of that case other than what the cop told me when he pulled me over; hell, I don't even know if they caught the guy that did it. All I know is that I almost went to jail for at least one night for something I didn't do and would have naively handed them the evidence to support a case against me because I had nothing to hide. We live in a country that convicts people based on whether or not one of 12 semi-random individuals can hold onto a reasonable doubt of guilt when deliberating the facts, feelings, and assumptions they have about the case.

 

[kju1]

You're fucking paranoid. No, there's NOTHING on my phone that could incriminate me in any imaginable way. What exactly do you think they could find from my phone that 'I would be doing to my own kids'? WTF kind of thinking is that? Are you doing something to your kids that you shouldn't?????

You guys sound like you're committing crimes regularly and are afraid of the police.

I dont have kids. So get off your high horse. So do you speed? Even 1mph over the speed limit? Never? I will call bullshit. Have a drink before you were 21? Cross the street outside of a designated crosswalk? Do you smoke? Have you dropped your cig butt or anything else on the ground?

I GUARANTEE you break at least one law every day. So guess what...you are a CRIMINAL!

The TRUTH could be very easily revealed by examining the data on the phone. But if you have things to hide, you have things to hide... hmmm...

Bullshit. But hey if you have nothing to hide then send us all your texts and images on your phone and your browsing history. You wouldn't care if we looked through them also right? I mean society should be policing its own and reporting crimes to the police. So let us take a look at your phone and we will make sure you didn't commit any crimes. Remember you have nothing to hide and you're an open book.

So are you saying you don't report your sales to the tax office like you should? And you're dumb enough to leave an electronic trace of the said fact? What can I say...

Do you shop online?
Do you shop outside of your home state?

Have you dutifully filled out the paperwork when you werent charged sales tax? I think you didnt. I think we should report you but if you prove to us you're innocent we wont do it...

Sure innocent people can be put to jail. But they will not help their case by not providing proof of their innocense. Not doing so will only raise suspicion.



You have a right not to incriminate yourself. So if you stick to that EXACT right, it means you most likely have something incriminating since you're afraid to open access.



And think how it would have ended if you would have 'stuck to your rights' and not shown them any proof of you giving the key, having moved out, paying the fee and the last rent and the copies etc.

It's your right to 'not incriminate yourself' and not provide all this evidence. YOU WOULD BE RIGHT NOW IN JAIL PROBABLY.

Thanks for proving my point.

No you proved his point. You believe the world should be a police state where you are guilty until proven innocent. Thats been tried and it doesnt work and quite frankly its a really shitty place to live.

Like I said, if and when I'm talking to the police I have no fear. I don't see the police as my enemy but as my protector. If I would break the law I would feel extremely cautious and worried about them naturally.

The police arent there to protect you when they come asking questions about a crime. They are there to arrest someone and they fervently hope its you so they can close the case. Its their JOB to do anything and everything to prove you guilty. Anything you do only helps them. Not understanding this is quite frankly the stupidest thing I have seen this week.

Also nobody gives a shit about your "mint Mercedes". In fact the only thing that did is make you look like an ass and ruin what little credibility (and it wasn't much) you might have had.

 

[c3k]

An analogy, to put this in perspective. A guy is found to have evidence that he committed a murder, but there is no body. Perhaps the victim's DNA is in the trunk, there's a shovel, and he and the victim had on ongoing, public, feud. Imagine jailing him for 6 months until he tells where the body is. That is not legal. Why? Because it would force him to assist the State in his prosecution. Now, the prosecution, if it can convict him on the evidence they have, may be able to get a harsher sentence (or, ask for leniency if he leads them to the body). However, the very act of not leading them to the body is not a crime. Similarly, a pedophile should not be imprisoned for refusing to give access to his device. He is not an officer of the court. He is not there to assist in any warrant...especially one against him.

To those who think this makes me "soft" on criminals, you're wrong. I'm "hard" on my, and your, Constitutional Rights. As to pedophiles, I'd have them castrated and/or imprisoned for life. Or just executed...if we can get it done rapidly. Like within a week of conviction. (This is why I think it is VERY important not to convict an innocent man.)

 

[Derangel]

No you proved his point. You believe the world should be a police state where you are guilty until proven innocent. Thats been tried and it doesnt work and quite frankly its a really shitty place to live.

Our system is far from perfect (and no system that involves humans and politics ever will be) but it is far FAR better than the world he seems to want. For example, Japan's criminal justice system is based on "guilty until proven innocent". Japan has a conviction rate of over 99%. Not because the police are good or because they only arrest the bad guy, but because their system is so fucked that it is nearly impossible to prove innocence and judges are pressured from politicians to convict, convict, convict. And that shit happens in countries without a proper justice system that acknowledges the need for the prosecution to prove their case instead of putting that burden on the accused.

 

[Seventyfive]

Why didn't he just bleachbit his phone? From everything I have read, if you're under investigation for a crime and you use bleachbit to destroy the evidence, it's totally OK to do.

 

[B00nie]

I dont have kids. So get off your high horse. So do you speed? Even 1mph over the speed limit? Never? I will call bullshit. Have a drink before you were 21? Cross the street outside of a designated crosswalk? Do you smoke? Have you dropped your cig butt or anything else on the ground?

I GUARANTEE you break at least one law every day. So guess what...you are a CRIMINAL!

Let's see. It's legal here to drink when 18 so yes. I have crossed the street where ever, however good luck trying to prove that from the contents of my phone. No I don't smoke and I hate idiots that drop butts on the ground.

Bullshit. But hey if you have nothing to hide then send us all your texts and images on your phone and your browsing history. You wouldn't care if we looked through them also right? I mean society should be policing its own and reporting crimes to the police. So let us take a look at your phone and we will make sure you didn't commit any crimes. Remember you have nothing to hide and you're an open book.

Your kind always makes the same argument. You're not the police, you're not sworn by law to hold things confidential and further more, you have zero REASON to see my private stuff. So your argument is not smart at all.

Do you shop online?
Do you shop outside of your home state?

Have you dutifully filled out the paperwork when you werent charged sales tax? I think you didnt. I think we should report you but if you prove to us you're innocent we wont do it...

I don't have to. We have completely automatic taxing for this sort of purchases. Any larger shipment gets taxed and charged at the customs. Every year I get a pre-filled tax report from the tax office and all I need to do is check that it's valid. Usually it is.

No you proved his point. You believe the world should be a police state where you are guilty until proven innocent. Thats been tried and it doesnt work and quite frankly its a really shitty place to live.

Sorry to break it to you but you're already guilty until proven innocent. That's why they investigate you in the first place. If the notion of assumed innocence was true you would never have any worry about releasing your phone information - they wouldn't check the contents outside the investigation on the assumption you haven't done anything. In reality it seems that they will search everything even outside the scope of the investigation (which seems quite odd and illegal to me).

The police arent there to protect you when they come asking questions about a crime. They are there to arrest someone and they fervently hope its you so they can close the case. Its their JOB to do anything and everything to prove you guilty. Anything you do only helps them. Not understanding this is quite frankly the stupidest thing I have seen this week.

You got it wrong. It's not the cops duty to just arrest someone. It's their duty to collect evidence and detain you if the evidence seems to support it. They might also detain you for no reason if you show signs of not wanting to disclose your activities that would prove your innocence.

Also nobody gives a shit about your "mint Mercedes". In fact the only thing that did is make you look like an ass and ruin what little credibility (and it wasn't much) you might have had.

I'm sorry if you're jealous that I don't drive with a ghetto Dodge full of semen stains and drug residue.

 

[Derangel]

Sorry to break it to you but you're already guilty until proven innocent. That's why they investigate you in the first place. If the notion of assumed innocence was true you would never have any worry about releasing your phone information - they wouldn't check the contents outside the investigation on the assumption you haven't done anything. In reality it seems that they will search everything even outside the scope of the investigation (which seems quite odd and illegal to me).

You have a bad understanding of the criminal justice system. Innocent until proven guilty is in effect. Being investigated is suspicion of guilt, not saying you're guilty. You don't have to prove you are innocent, the prosecution has to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that you are guilty. The entire burden is put on the police and the prosecution to prove both that you did the act (actus reus) and that you posses proper mens rea (guilty mind/intent) to be guilty of the level of crime you are being charged with.

You got it wrong. It's not the cops duty to just arrest someone. It's their duty to collect evidence and detain you if the evidence seems to support it. They might also detain you for no reason if you show signs of not wanting to disclose your activities that would prove your innocence.

Wrong. Unless you are refusing to comply with a court order, like a warrant, the police have no power to arrest you for refusing to give them information. If you are in a non-custodial situation (aka, you haven't yet been arrested) the police have no power to hold you. If a cop does not read you your rights you can walk away without consequence. Even if you have been read your rights if the police lack evidence to hold you, well they have to let you go after a set amount of time. Abusing that will get anything you stated thrown out of court because the police put you under undue stress and it counts as forcing a confession.

 

[Darunion]

I'm sorry if you're jealous that I don't drive with a ghetto Dodge full of semen stains and drug residue.

I think there might be a lot of options in the middle somewhere. Don't go and assume the rest of us are drug dealing peasants and we won't assume you just live an easy life with everything handed to you.

Also just because police are 'sworn' does not mean anything at all. That does not prevent them from committing a crime anymore than the fear of jail does us.

I don't think of the police or government as an 'entity' to be evil, but I do not just trust every person I meet. I have no reason to. I have been needlessly harassed by police and also above and beyond helped by them. This does not create a reflection of all of them this is an example of individuals, which is how I relate to anyone, as an individual and not by who your employer is.

 

[B00nie]

You have a bad understanding of the criminal justice system. Innocent until proven guilty is in effect. Being investigated is suspicion of guilt, not saying you're guilty. You don't have to prove you are innocent, the prosecution has to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that you are guilty. The entire burden is put on the police and the prosecution to prove both that you did the act (actus reus) and that you posses proper mens rea (guilty mind/intent) to be guilty of the level of crime you are being charged with.

Wrong. If you have to be scared that the police is going to search for your device for _anything_ incriminating that proves they suspect you to be guilty of _something_. If you were innocent until proven guilty you could release your device to be checked for a given suspected crime any time without a worry.

Wrong. Unless you are refusing to comply with a court order, like a warrant, the police have no power to arrest you for refusing to give them information. If you are in a non-custodial situation (aka, you haven't yet been arrested) the police have no power to hold you. If a cop does not read you your rights you can walk away without consequence. Even if you have been read your rights if the police lack evidence to hold you, well they have to let you go after a set amount of time. Abusing that will get anything you stated thrown out of court because the police put you under undue stress and it counts as forcing a confession.

So you prefer to get arrested and tell your name at the police station instead of doing it on the street? And how is that going to help your situation?

 

[B00nie]

I think there might be a lot of options in the middle somewhere. Don't go and assume the rest of us are drug dealing peasants and we won't assume you just live an easy life with everything handed to you.

When you default to having to worry about what can be found in your vehicle you don't leave too much for imagination. I can say with 100% confidence that neither of our vehicles contain any traces of anything that could incriminate me or my wife. If you hang around with junkies / criminals then again, different story.

Also just because police are 'sworn' does not mean anything at all. That does not prevent them from committing a crime anymore than the fear of jail does us.

What would be the motivation of the cop to commit a crime using your information? That does not compute. It seems you default cops to be corrupt also.

I don't think of the police or government as an 'entity' to be evil, but I do not just trust every person I meet. I have no reason to. I have been needlessly harassed by police and also above and beyond helped by them. This does not create a reflection of all of them this is an example of individuals, which is how I relate to anyone, as an individual and not by who your employer is.

Funnily enough I have never been harassed by the police, quite the contrary in fact. Every cop I've been in business with have been very professional and courteous. We have high standards of training for the cops and every cop goes through a vigorous physical and mental screening even before you get accepted to the academy.

 

[NickJames]

Wow. Just wow.

The ignorance is strong with this one. You lack the fundamental ability to understand the world and how it isn't run on magic and rainbows.

I really believe he's trolling at this point. This thread is 4 pages of everyone trying to convince 2 people that the world isn't perfect.

 

[kju1]

I'm sorry if you're jealous that I don't drive with a ghetto Dodge full of semen stains and drug residue.

Congrats mate on upping your troll level. Next time just go "ding!" and well get it.

 

[AltreineirialX]

Officer-I see you Googled MEK and chemicals at Home Depot

Me-I am a painter

Officer-You are a bomb maker

 

[Darunion]

When you default to having to worry about what can be found in your vehicle you don't leave too much for imagination. I can say with 100% confidence that neither of our vehicles contain any traces of anything that could incriminate me or my wife. If you hang around with junkies / criminals then again, different story.

Funny enough, if you handle cash you have traces of illegal substances. Explainable in most cases, but still traces none-the-less. And in truth, you can only ever claim yourself. Who knows what your wife does or hangs out with, that is beyond your circle of certainty.

What would be the motivation of the cop to commit a crime using your information? That does not compute. It seems you default cops to be corrupt also.

Your lack of comprehension or intentional is starting to look like trolling now. Do I really need to create a 5 paragraph essay on the psychology of criminals. This may come as a surprise to you, cops can be criminals too.

Funnily enough I have never been harassed by the police, quite the contrary in fact. Every cop I've been in business with have been very professional and courteous. We have high standards of training for the cops and every cop goes through a vigorous physical and mental screening even before you get accepted to the academy.

Wow, what a perfect system that can't possibly make a mistake when screening 18 - 22 year olds. Your quaint town does not represent the entire country/world. I don't understand why it is so difficult for you to understand the world isn't perfect.

If it is a lack of understanding on your part, I would love to help. But if you are just trolling then just go away because ignorance is part of the problem.

 

[warmon6]

Have a drink before you were 21?

Only problem asking that is there is no federal law the says you "cant drink below 21". The "National Minimum Drinking Age Act" that set the age target actually doesn't do what the name says... It mainly targets the age in which you can buy alcohol. (Which 2 U.S territories that im aware are the only ones that allow the buy alcohol at 18).

The laws that says you cant drink below 21 are only on the state level and only some states have them. Other states dont have any minimal drinking age. Then there a few in the middle that say you cant but has exceptions.

West Virginia for example is in middle with an exception.

(c) Any person who shall knowingly buy for, give to or furnish nonintoxicating beer to anyone under the age of twenty-one to whom they are not related by blood or marriage is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined an amount not to exceed $100 or shall be confined in jail for a period not to exceed ten days, or both such fine and confinement.

http://www.legis.state.wv.us/wvcode/chapterentire.cfm?chap=11&art=16&section=19#01


So as long as its non-intoxicating and it with direct family (blood or marriage), drinking under 21 is ok here.

Although say if you were to give me alcohol (non-family) and if i was under 21, then you would be in jail and under a different section of the law, I would be to.


The more you know.

 

[kju1]

Only problem asking that is there is no federal law the says you "cant drink below 21". The "National Minimum Drinking Age Act" that set the age target actually doesn't do what the name says... It mainly targets the age in which you can buy alcohol. (Which 2 U.S territories that im aware are the only ones that allow the buy alcohol at 18).

The laws that says you cant drink below 21 are only on the state level and only some stated have them. Other states dont have any minimal drinking age. Then there a few in the middle that say you cant but has exceptions.

West Virginia for example is in middle with an exception.



http://www.legis.state.wv.us/wvcode/chapterentire.cfm?chap=11&art=16&section=19#01


So as long as its non-intoxicating and it with direct family (blood or marriage), drinking under 21 is ok here.

Although say if you were to give me alcohol (non-family) and if i was under 21, then you would be in jail and under a different section of the law, I would be to.


The more you know.

I was aware of the exceptions, however I used the terminology that I have seen most people use. I dont drink alcohol at all (never have) so the best I can do is use it as an example as how I have heard it over the years from others.

 

[warmon6]

I was aware of the exceptions, however I used the terminology that I have seen most people use. I dont drink alcohol at all (never have) so the best I can do is use it as an example as how I have heard it over the years from others.

Ah, I dont drink either so I understand where your coming from. (Cant stand the smell of alcohol. What ever common component in beer, wine, ect, it turns me off from it.)

Only knew about this exception because a while back someone was asking me about it and of course, not a drinker myself, had to look it up. (I remember the stupidest of things that i really have no need to remember...)

 

[IcePickFreak]

When you have horses as high as the one he's riding, I guess you never need to buy a used vehicle.

Way back when, my first car was 20 years old. I had it for a year or two when I was cleaning out the inside and found a half-filled bottle of Southern Comfort under the carpeting of the front seat that looked to be about as old as the car.

 

[kju1]

Ah, I dont drink either so I understand where your coming from. (Cant stand the smell of alcohol. What ever common component in beer, wine, ect, it turns me off from it.)

Only knew about this exception because a while back someone was asking me about it and of course, not a drinker myself, had to look it up. (I remember the stupidest of things that i really have no need to remember...)

And I thought I was the only one who cant stand the smell...

 

[lcpiper]

so say you're innocent, then you can be charged for another crime relative to whats on your phone, hell whats to say they don't plant something just because they don't like your face. then they're sitting there reading every one of your text messages! just so they can get a good profile on who exactly THEY make you out to be??!!! AND all this is taking place while YOUR happy ass is sitting in a cell down in county. oh yeah, and they're all sitting down there laughing at the d pics you sent to some chick because there's clearly a scab on the side of it!!!! I mean why would you do that???

Files don't just "show up" on a phone. Plant something .... there is a log file somewhere that says how the file got on the phone. Are they going to doctor the log file, make it look like he downloaded it from a site. If it was downloaded from a site then the file was transferred acrossed the ISP's network, more log files. Are the cops going to hack Verizon and ........ fucking stupid sometimes.

 

[VRT]

Files don't just "show up" on a phone. Plant something .... there is a log file somewhere that says how the file got on the phone. Are they going to doctor the log file, make it look like he downloaded it from a site. If it was downloaded from a site then the file was transferred acrossed the ISP's network, more log files. Are the cops going to hack Verizon and ........ fucking stupid sometimes.

If you believe that people won't re-create log files, you are sorely mistaken, seen it done more than once.

 

[B00nie]

Congrats mate on upping your troll level. Next time just go "ding!" and well get it.

Troll? Truth.

 

[B00nie]

Funny enough, if you handle cash you have traces of illegal substances. Explainable in most cases, but still traces none-the-less. And in truth, you can only ever claim yourself. Who knows what your wife does or hangs out with, that is beyond your circle of certainty.

I never carry cash. Debit/credit all the way. And I know who my wife hangs out with.

Your lack of comprehension or intentional is starting to look like trolling now. Do I really need to create a 5 paragraph essay on the psychology of criminals. This may come as a surprise to you, cops can be criminals too.

Except that psych screening will disqualify you from the job. It's extremely unlikely for a cop to be a criminal in my country. In your country any hillbilly can get a badge apparently.

Wow, what a perfect system that can't possibly make a mistake when screening 18 - 22 year olds. Your quaint town does not represent the entire country/world. I don't understand why it is so difficult for you to understand the world isn't perfect.

If it is a lack of understanding on your part, I would love to help. But if you are just trolling then just go away because ignorance is part of the problem.

More like you're limited to your lcoal problems and do not understand that somewhere things can be better. Much better in fact.

 

[B00nie]

Files don't just "show up" on a phone. Plant something .... there is a log file somewhere that says how the file got on the phone. Are they going to doctor the log file, make it look like he downloaded it from a site. If it was downloaded from a site then the file was transferred acrossed the ISP's network, more log files. Are the cops going to hack Verizon and ........ fucking stupid sometimes.

Files are regularly 'planted' on pedos phones and computers. No idea how they got there, officer.