Staying Silent

Van Living Forum

Help Support Van Living Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Optimistic Paranoid

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
4,534
Reaction score
10
I wasn't sure whether to put his in one of the current threads on being pulled over or not.  Mods, feel free to move it there if you want.

News item in today's New York Post:

Busted Silent Gal Sues

A Philadelphia woman who was arrested after she refused to answer questions during a traffic stop in New Jersey has sued state police, claiming troopers violated her rights.

Rebecca Musarra, an attorney, filed the federal civil rights lawsuit after the Oct. 16 stop on Route 519 in Warren County.  At least three troopers insisted after she was pulled over that refusing to answer questions was a criminal act, according to the lawsuit.

A spokesman for the attorney general's office, which is representing the troopers, declined to comment on the allegations.  State police spokesman Capt. Stephen Jones said the department's internal affairs office conducts a review any time misconduct is alleged.   AP
 
They will settle out of court giving her a big paycheck, at the taxpayer's expense, as usual.

Taxpayers pay for many of these misconduct suits
Boston = 36 million on past 10 years
Chicago = 520 million in past 10 years
Cleveland = 8 million
Denver = 12 million
LA = 100+ million (they actually budget that ahead of time, crazy huh?)
New York = 350 million in just 5 years !!!
Philly = 40 million on 5 years
and the list goes on.

While our school system can not afford pencils and paper, police get their misconduct bills paid for my the tax payers. Money well spent?
 
Optimistic Paranoid said:
I wasn't sure whether to put his in one of the current threads on being pulled over or not.  Mods, feel free to move it there if you want.

News item in today's New York Post:

Busted Silent Gal Sues

A Philadelphia woman who was arrested after she refused to answer questions during a traffic stop in New Jersey has sued state police, claiming troopers violated her rights.

Rebecca Musarra, an attorney, filed the federal civil rights lawsuit after the Oct. 16 stop on Route 519 in Warren County.  At least three troopers insisted after she was pulled over that refusing to answer questions was a criminal act, according to the lawsuit.

A spokesman for the attorney general's office, which is representing the troopers, declined to comment on the allegations.  State police spokesman Capt. Stephen Jones said the department's internal affairs office conducts a review any time misconduct is alleged.   AP

I would love to see the police report.  I'm guessing that the officers were not stupid enough to put down in writing that the woman was arrested for not answering questions.  If they were that dumb, the woman will probably never have to work again after the lawsuit is settled.
 
I read the article and saw her charges were dismissed by the Sgt. on duty. What I don't get is the need to prove a point by remaining silent. The less I have to interact with anyone the better, especially LE. A simple "yes" or  "no" would have kept her from being cuffed and stuffed.

I follow the rule "Pick your battles wisely" and her battle was a non-event. IMHO
 
Gunny said:
I read the article and saw her charges were dismissed by the Sgt. on duty. What I don't get is the need to prove a point by remaining silent. The less I have to interact with anyone the better, especially LE. A simple "yes" or  "no" would have kept her from being cuffed and stuffed.

I follow the rule "Pick your battles wisely" and her battle was a non-event. IMHO

Haven't you ever noticedhow many people live for drama? They actively court it, then put on their hair shirts and play the martyr.
 
Optimistic Paranoid said:
I wasn't sure whether to put his in one of the current threads on being pulled over or not.  Mods, feel free to move it there if you want.

News item in today's New York Post:

Busted Silent Gal Sues

A Philadelphia woman who was arrested after she refused to answer questions during a traffic stop in New Jersey has sued state police, claiming troopers violated her rights.

Rebecca Musarra, an attorney, filed the federal civil rights lawsuit after the Oct. 16 stop on Route 519 in Warren County.  At least three troopers insisted after she was pulled over that refusing to answer questions was a criminal act, according to the lawsuit.

A spokesman for the attorney general's office, which is representing the troopers, declined to comment on the allegations.  State police spokesman Capt. Stephen Jones said the department's internal affairs office conducts a review any time misconduct is alleged.   AP

Decent discussion unfolding around the matter on Reddit at:

 
I thought this was something about being "Quiet" at work...(Which I like being)

Dealing with LE is simple, if you did something wrong, admit, apologize and hope for nothing but a stern warning.

In the event of a ticket, it's up to you to decide to pay it or try to get it dismissed.

But REFUSING to answer any questions gets the hackles up and results in problems that wouldn't have happened if you had been a bit more politie.
 
It is amazing how some people always find a way to blame the victim. As if by exercising her right to remain silent, this woman somehow brought an arrest upon herself. Hell, its not like she took a dump on the hood of their cruiser, but by reading some people's comments you would think this to be the case.
 
The right to remain silent is not to "refuse" anything, it is your RIGHT. It is up to the police to respect that right, not yours to respect their feelings about it. The right to remain silent is a direct restriction *ON* the government and its employees (not the civilians). If they can not accept that, they are in the wrong country.

Anyone willing to give up that right is... well... a moron IMO. Would you give up your right to free religion just to avoid a conflict with your local LEO? How about the right to privacy? right to a trial? Seriously, how many rights are you comfortable giving away before you draw a line? If you answer is anything other than big fat "zero"... you live in the wrong country.

Seriously... protect your rights guys. Unbelievable that you live in such fear of your local LEO's emotions and their ability to honor your protected rights.
 
USExplorer said:
It is amazing how some people always find a way to blame the victim. As if by exercising her right to remain silent, this woman somehow brought an arrest upon herself.

I think that the dominant culture reinforces a certain misunderstanding of 'rights', as if they're only things to be exercised to mitigate actual culpability. There's a stigma that 'pleading the 5th' (one's right to remain silent) necessarily implies some wrong-doing, ergo, deserved guilt, on the part of the one remaining silent. It's rather unfortunate, in my opinion, that rights have become so commonly misunderstood that the exercise of those rights is viewed largely as an implicit admission of guilt/wrong-doing.

Another take on it can be seen in this paragraph from a Psychology Today article:

Victim blaming is not just about avoiding culpability—it's also about avoiding vulnerability. The more innocent a victim, the more threatening they are. Victims threaten our sense that the world is a safe and moral place, where good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people. When bad things happen to good people, it implies that no one is safe, that no matter how good we are, we too could be vulnerable. The idea that misfortune can be random, striking anyone at any time, is a terrifying thought, and yet we are faced every day with evidence that it may be true.

In order to reinforce an already familiar and/or comfortable world-view that 'everything's ok' and 'justice/fairness prevail', some people will subconsciously resort to victim blaming as a mean of reassuring themselves that if some injustice occurred, then surely it must've been contrived -- a result of someone 'looking for trouble', etc.

Perhaps one day, the exercise of one's right to remain silent will be as well-regarded as one's right to speak freely. Until then, the struggle to convey truth remains... as challenging as ever :)
 
Van-Tramp said:
The right to remain silent is not to "refuse" anything, it is your RIGHT. It is up to the police to respect that right, not yours to respect their feelings about it. The right to remain silent is a direct restriction *ON* the government and its employees (not the civilians). If they can not accept that, they are in the wrong country.

Anyone willing to give up that right is... well... a moron IMO. Would you give up your right to free religion just to avoid a conflict with your local LEO? How about the right to privacy? right to a trial? Seriously, how many rights are you comfortable giving away before you draw a line? If you answer is anything other than big fat "zero"... you live in the wrong country.

Seriously... protect your rights guys. Unbelievable that you live in such fear of your local LEO's emotions and their ability to honor your protected rights.

Van-Tramp, I have read many of your posts and you do a superb job detailing your travels around the US and other points. Saying that, I will disagree to a point on the remaining silent. I am a resident of Tx, and required by law to inform the cop I am armed. His next question is always "Where is your weapon located?". Both questions require a verbal answer.

I am not sure I fit into the "Moron" category by answering a simple question and being on my way rather than have my vehicle towed, a trip to the cop shop and just ruining my day in general. Answering a question like "Do you know why I stopped you?" is not the same as giving up my freedom of religion, right to bear arms or anything else. 

I have fought and given blood, body parts and a certain degree of my sanity for the rights you speak of. Or so I am told by my enlistments oaths.

You seem to be an intelligent, well read man, you must know that when confronted by several power tripping cops, it is a no-win situation. There are not too many things I fear, and cops are not one of them. If asked about an actual crime, of course I would "Lawyer Up" in a flash. 

My disagreeing with you does not mean I don't enjoy your travels... Be Safe.
 
Gunny said:
Van-Tramp, I have read many of your posts and you do a superb job detailing your travels around the US and other points. Saying that, I will disagree to a point on the remaining silent. I am a resident of Tx, and required by law to inform the cop I am armed. His next question is always "Where is your weapon located?". Both questions require a verbal answer.

I am not sure I fit into the "Moron" category by answering a simple question and being on my way rather than have my vehicle towed, a trip to the cop shop and just ruining my day in general. Answering a question like "Do you know why I stopped you?" is not the same as giving up my freedom of religion, right to bear arms or anything else. 

I have fought and given blood, body parts and a certain degree of my sanity for the rights you speak of. Or so I am told by my enlistments oaths.

You seem to be an intelligent, well read man, you must know that when confronted by several power tripping cops, it is a no-win situation. There are not too many things I fear, and cops are not one of them. If asked about an actual crime, of course I would "Lawyer Up" in a flash. 

My disagreeing with you does not mean I don't enjoy your travels... Be Safe.

Yes, when you are in fact required by law, you should in fact do so. By carrying that concealed weapon (which I do as well, thank you for doing so yourself) in the state of TX you have already agreed too further limits in your right to remain silent. You signed away some of that right. I do not agree with it, but you did sign it away, so you no longer have that right, in that respect.

My "moron" comment may have been a bit harsh. For that I apologize. However, answering the questions "do you know why I stopped you" can (and will be) used against you in a court of law. By answering that with an affirmative, you have just plead guilty to the very thing he is stopping you for. He is NOT a judge, so pleading guilty to him serves you no good at all. Why would you do that? With that said, I have always had very civil and respectful conversations (with most) LEOs and they have always respected my rights... to remain silent, to carry my gun, etc.

The fact that you fought (and been injured, both physically and mentally) for these very rights should put them even higher on your priority then just pleasing the LEO to avoid "harassment". You certainly did not fight for this country only to bow down to everyone with a badge did you?

I certainly have no fear of a couple of bad cops coming to harass me. They can, and I will most certainly file a civil suit and claim some of that hard earned tax dollars that they will be happy to pay me in a settlement. And if it were not for people like myself, your rights would not exist at all. They would happily trample on them left and "right". So, while I thank you for *your* service, don't forget to thank those that are CURRENTLY protect your rights that you fought for... such us weirdo's who will happily irritate that LEO to prove the point that he is the servant, not the master.

Be safe too Gunny, and thank you for your service. It would be an honor to put a beer in front of you one day :)
 
Van-Tramp said:
Yes, when you are in fact required by law, you should in fact do so. By carrying that concealed weapon (which I do as well, thank you for doing so yourself) in the state of TX you have already agreed too further limits in your right to remain silent. You signed away some of that right. I do not agree with it, but you did sign it away, so you no longer have that right, in that respect.

My "moron" comment may have been a bit harsh. For that I apologize. However, answering the questions "do you know why I stopped you" can (and will be) used against you in a court of law. By answering that with an affirmative, you have just plead guilty to the very thing he is stopping you for. He is NOT a judge, so pleading guilty to him serves you no good at all. Why would you do that? With that said, I have always had very civil and respectful conversations (with most) LEOs and they have always respected my rights... to remain silent, to carry my gun, etc.

The fact that you fought (and been injured, both physically and mentally) for these very rights should put them even higher on your priority then just pleasing the LEO to avoid "harassment". You certainly did not fight for this country only to bow down to everyone with a badge did you?

I certainly have no fear of a couple of bad cops coming to harass me. They can, and I will most certainly file a civil suit and claim some of that hard earned tax dollars that they will be happy to pay me in a settlement. And if it were not for people like myself, your rights would not exist at all. They would happily trample on them left and "right". So, while I thank you for *your* service, don't forget to thank those that are CURRENTLY protect your rights that you fought for... such us weirdo's who will happily irritate that LEO to prove the point that he is the servant, not the master.

Be safe too Gunny, and thank you for your service. It would be an honor to put a beer in front of you one day :)
Agreed... On the beer..And I agree with what you say.. And even if I didn't ,I agree with your right to say it. 

The Boundermobile will be out and about in June. Til Then...
 
Guess a road trip to NJ is on the horizon. They can cuff and hogtie me for $ 2.5M.

Sent from my SCH-S968C using Tapatalk
 
Any posts like this will be deleted on this forum:

"Except for a few, they are all..."

It doesn't matter who "they" are--that kind of a broad, negative generalization about any group gets deleted.
Bob
 
Van-Tramp said:
HI,  FIRSTLY I'M NOT YELLING BECAUSE THIS IS ALL IN CAPS.....I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW TO CHANGE THE COLOR OR FONT IN MY REPLY SO I'M DOING IT MY WAY.



Yes, when you are in fact required by law, you should in fact do so. By carrying that concealed weapon (which I do as well, thank you for doing so yourself) in the state of TX you have already agreed too further limits in your right to remain silent. You signed away some of that right. I do not agree with it, but you did sign it away, so you no longer have that right, in that respect.

My "moron" comment may have been a bit harsh. For that I apologize. However, answering the questions "do you know why I stopped you" can (and will be) used against you in a court of law. By answering that with an affirmative, you have just plead guilty to the very thing he is stopping you for. He is NOT a judge, so pleading guilty to him serves you no good at all. Why would you do that? With that said, I have always had very civil and respectful conversations (with most) LEOs and they have always respected my rights... to remain silent, to carry my gun, etc.



A WHILE BACK I WAS GOING TOO FAST IN A CONSTRUCTION ZONE ON A ARMY BASE COMING DOWN A HILL ON A BRIDGE...GUESS WHO WAS WAITING AT THE END OF THE  BRIDGE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD?  WHEN I SAW THE LEO UNIT TURN AROUND I STARTED LOOKING FOR A PLACE TO PULL OVER.  
 I HAD MY DL AND INS. CARD READY WITH MY HANDS IN PLAIN SIGHT AS HE APPROACHED MY TRUCK....WHY?....BECAUSE EVERY TIME A LEO MAKES A TRAFFIC STOP IT COULD BE THE LAST THING THEY EVER DO.....I CAN ONLY IMAGINE THE DAILY STRESS THEY LIVE WITH.
WHEN ASKED IF I NEW WHY I WAS STOPPED I SAID "YES" HE KNEW IT AND I KNEW IT.....I THEN EXPLAINED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION WARNING SIGNS WERE NOT PLACED PROPERLY AND WHEN TRYING TO SLOW DOWN THE TRAFFIC BEHIND NEARLY PUSHED ME OFF THE BRIDGE
THE TRAFFIC CONTINUED TO SPEED BY DURING ALL OF THIS   HE RAN MY PLATES AND DRIVERS LICENSE, CAME BACK TO THE TRUCK THANKED ME AND REMINDED ME TO SLOW DOWN
AWAY HE WENT WITH LIGHTS FLASHING.  
I ANSWERED HIS QUESTIONS BECAUSE HE AND I BOTH NEW I WAS GOING WAY TO FAST ...I WAS BUSTED AND PREPARED TO TAKE THE TICKET IF I HAD TOO......I WAS CALM AND POLITE AND SAID YES SIR AND NO SIR BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY I WAS RAISED....WORKS FOR ME :)



The fact that you fought (and been injured, both physically and mentally) for these very rights should put them even higher on your priority then just pleasing the LEO to avoid "harassment". You certainly did not fight for this country only to bow down to everyone with a badge did you?


IMO   JUST BEING POLITE TO THE PEOPLE WHO WORK IN LAW ENFORCEMENT ISN'T "BOWING DOWN' TO ANYONE......IF I WERE A LEO, AND EVEN NOW THAT I'M NOT, I WOULD THINK SOMEONE WHO REFUSES TO EVEN STATE THEIR NAME HAS SOMETHING TO HIDE........AFTER ALL WHAT WOULD THAT BE CONSIDERED...PLEADING GUILTY TO BEING YOURSELF?


I THINK LEO'S ARE LIKE ANY OTHER GROUP THERE IS GOOD AND BAD IN ALL GROUPS OF PEOPLE THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS.

I certainly have no fear of a couple of bad cops coming to harass me. They can, and I will most certainly file a civil suit and claim some of that hard earned tax dollars that they will be happy to pay me in a settlement.


And if it were not for people like myself, your rights would not exist at all. They would happily trample on them left and "right". So, while I thank you for *your* service, don't forget to thank those that are CURRENTLY protect your rights that you fought for... such us weirdo's who will happily irritate that LEO to prove the point that he is the servant, not the master.

 EXCEPT FOR THE THANKS TO GUNNY FOR HIS SERVICE......IMO THE ABOVE IS JUST WRONG.....THAT'S JUST WHAT I THINK .........DOESN'T MAKE ME RIGHT.........OR YOU EITHER.      TJB


Be safe too Gunny, and thank you for your service. It would be an honor to put a beer in front of you one day :)
 
I'm sure many of us can remember a time or two where giving up one of our protected right did not end badly for us, but that does not mean you should give up that right. It never makes things better for you, only the possibility of worse. You admitted to a crime... he didn't cite you... I don't see how your admission benefited you in the slightest. Do you actually think your bowing down to him made him feel so grateful that he all of a sudden decided not to cite you?

Now, I have never recommended being rude to the LEO pulling you over. You can be polite without giving up your protected rights. IIf you had still been polite, and still kept quiet, you would have still driven away without a ticket. Your giving up of your right played no role in the end result, but could have cost you.

I have not been pulled over a lot since my middle-age years, but the few times i have I have always been polite without answering any of his questions. I have yet to be hauled away to jail for doing so. In fact, I didn't get any traffic citations either. They have "let me go with a warning" each time. It is very VERY possibly to exercise your rights without being an a$$hole, and still not get ticketed or jailed.
 
Top