am I required by law to answer that question?

Have you noticed the guys picture? He sure looks like a ???????.
When you are stopped by an officer, and they ask you have you had anything to drink, I would suggest that you ask him if you are required by law to answer that question!
It is a great question! Why would anyone have to answer that question if it might get you in trouble? I do not think you have to answer and it is in your best interests to ask the officer, "Did you stop me because of any erotic driving behaviour?
I remember many years ago, driving onto the highway from a side mile road, I was stopped way down the highway and the RCMP officer asked me if I came to a full stop at the stop sign. I refused to answer him, and he asked me at least 10 times. I figured out that he was 1/2 mile away when I entered the highway and was looking for me to admit that I did not make a full stop. He was pretty angry yelling at me the question, and I had my wife and 4 kids in the back , possibly with 1 or 2 dogs, I don't remember. If I said I went through the stop sign I wonder if I would have been issued a ticket even though he did not observe the infraction?

This should not be in sports and entertainment!
What is happening to this forum?
Back to the darkside??
No!

erotic or eratic? sp?

I was naked!

When your plane is falling from 30.000 ft who cares about rights , I want them to do what ever it takes to stop the idiot who they suspect of a bomb , before he gets on and if it take s someones god forsaken precious rights being hurt too bad .

As i say do you think the terrorist gives a rats ass about my right to a long live get real .

Anyone carrying $4700 in cash wouldn't be planning to take his own life. I think the guys were short of money for their supper and were hoping to grab a handful for themselves! I love this guys face. Clean cut, but he was concerned about who he worked for would be thought of as a commie bastard. lol

Pavolo wrote:When your plane is falling from 30.000 ft who cares about rights , I want them to do what ever it takes to stop the idiot who they suspect of a bomb , before he gets on and if it take s someones god forsaken precious rights being hurt too bad .

As i say do you think the terrorist gives a rats ass about my right to a long live get real .

If they were detaining him for trying to smuggle on an olfa knife i'd understand, but this is currency, what threat is 4300 dollars? paper cuts?

I bet you they were worried that the money would depreciate so fast that the money would drag the plane down??

casualchris wrote:

Pavolo wrote:When your plane is falling from 30.000 ft who cares about rights , I want them to do what ever it takes to stop the idiot who they suspect of a bomb , before he gets on and if it take s someones god forsaken precious rights being hurt too bad .

As i say do you think the terrorist gives a rats ass about my right to a long live get real .

If they were detaining him for trying to smuggle on an olfa knife i'd understand, but this is currency, what threat is 4300 dollars? paper cuts?

They did not detain him till he would not explain why he had it , if he had answered the question bye bye . But when he refused to or gave his bs answer they have the authority to detain him and for all they know it was drug money . And what in this day and age you can.t be to careful, to be that we give up some of our ease of movement . This is the biggest plant going from a party upset they are not in power .

Sorry Pav. They were power-trippers that far exceeded their authority in questioning. You're mixing up two issues.

What these guys did had nothing to do with security. It was all about power.

Pavolo wrote:

casualchris wrote:

Pavolo wrote:When your plane is falling from 30.000 ft who cares about rights , I want them to do what ever it takes to stop the idiot who they suspect of a bomb , before he gets on and if it take s someones god forsaken precious rights being hurt too bad .

As i say do you think the terrorist gives a rats ass about my right to a long live get real .

If they were detaining him for trying to smuggle on an olfa knife i'd understand, but this is currency, what threat is 4300 dollars? paper cuts?

They did not detain him till he would not explain why he had it , if he had answered the question bye bye . But when he refused to or gave his bs answer they have the authority to detain him and for all they know it was drug money . And what in this day and age you can.t be to careful, to be that we give up some of our ease of movement . This is the biggest plant going from a party upset they are not in power .

Being in possession of 4300 bucks is not against the law, nor is it reason for detention.

I'm not willing to give up rights for percieved safety.

It isn't against the law but in most jurisdictions it is reason to question you as you may be seen as a drug dealer. Especially in the US and in a Airport . Sad to say the days of free movement in these facilities are gone thank the Taliban for that not the Transportation Safety Administration. Remeber the banks have to report large deposits for the same reasons .

Pavolo wrote:

casualchris wrote:

Pavolo wrote:When your plane is falling from 30.000 ft who cares about rights , I want them to do what ever it takes to stop the idiot who they suspect of a bomb , before he gets on and if it take s someones god forsaken precious rights being hurt too bad .

As i say do you think the terrorist gives a rats ass about my right to a long live get real .

If they were detaining him for trying to smuggle on an olfa knife i'd understand, but this is currency, what threat is 4300 dollars? paper cuts?

They did not detain him till he would not explain why he had it , if he had answered the question bye bye . But when he refused to or gave his bs answer they have the authority to detain him and for all they know it was drug money . And what in this day and age you can.t be to careful, to be that we give up some of our ease of movement . This is the biggest plant going from a party upset they are not in power .

he never once refused to answer the question. He wanted some clarification on the law, am I required to answer that question? Had they said yes, I presume he would have answered. Had they said no, well then...no reason to hold him eh? But they continually refused to advise him of his legal rights.

The guy knew his rights, and some officers get pissed when they cannot intimidate people. he was questioned and then let go. Too bad he did not have a camera. can you imagine the pounding he would take if he asked the men to identify themselves for the camera?? Isn't technology great?

casualchris wrote:

Being in possession of 4300 bucks is not against the law, nor is it reason for detention.

I'm not willing to give up rights for percieved safety.

Wow! Now it's gone to $4,300 that this guy had with him... If you read the ORIGINAL ARTICLE, he had $4,700 and was a member of the Campaign for Liberty, which is Ron Paul's political group.

I asked somewhere how the airport security staff knew how much he was carrying. Apparently they have some sort of magnetic reader that reads info off the dollar bills themselves.

Someone else posted on the very same website, that people can, by law, move up to $10,000 U.S. into or out of the U.S.

$4,700 is less than $10,000, so they should have let this guy alone.