Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 6/19/2003 10:53:51 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 2:00:27 PM EDT
My God, some poor village has lost its idiot. Is that guy serious? Did he skip class the day they taught "law" in law school? I'm not registered on full-auto, and it hasn't emailed me my password yet. If it ever does, I'll open up on him. I still have my unlimited lexis account, I'll bust some Florida cases out on him. Steve, you nailed the 5th and 6th issues absolutely bar exam perfect. I have nothing to add. It's almost never to your advantage to refuse the breath test. If anything, you SHOULD take it if you're borderline, as it may exonerate you.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 2:21:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 4:38:40 PM EDT
I'm not a lawyer, yet I can see and understand what you are saying. Heaven help anyone who goes to him for legal advice, or worse, hires him as a defense attorney.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 9:01:46 PM EDT
Yah notice how he keeps saying to take his advice and then his sig says to not take legal advice off the internet. He's right in one place. Don't take his advice. Refusal is real bad idea in CA. You can refuse a field test but the real test comes, refusal pretty much flushes your license.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 9:09:29 PM EDT
The kind of prick that charges too much, knows too little and you are screwed before you ever walk in to court with him because EVERYONE IN THE COURT ALREADY HATES HIS GUTS. Since no one likes him, he can't make deals or catch a break, so he has to bitch his way around the issues. In addition he probably has low self-esteem issues due to fact he knows nobody likes him. Coupled with a propensity for drinking and spending too much time in strip clubs, then the issue of sexual dysfuntion sets in and he is really a miserable prick. He seems to have forgotten the system is run by people, not him.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 9:29:30 PM EDT
The guy can't possibly be a lawyer. I don't care what he says. If he really is a lawyer, I want to see his file at the Florida Bar...it's got to be colorful.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 9:35:15 PM EDT
entertaining thread over there
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 4:39:47 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 9:02:48 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 9:49:21 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 1:24:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Aimless: and yer losin' [:)] SouthernShark 45% (10) Steve in VA 23% (5) Neither 32% (7)
View Quote
Further proof that the internet is dominated by vapid morons.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 1:32:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/20/2003 1:37:53 PM EDT by dbrowne1]
This sort of spat happens all the time on the 'net. I got into one too. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence, some people keep digging. Go read this one on glocktalk if you want a good laugh: [url]http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=160544&perpage=25&pagenumber=3[/url] This link starts you on page 3. Pay attention to me and "RenegadeGlocker."
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 2:23:52 PM EDT
Steve, that was an interesting 20 minutes of reading. I personally think you outclassed the Shark by a mile. A related question though. I'm not sure if it was answered in that lengthy post. Here's the scenario, and it is (was) real. Luckily, we were never pulled over for any reason. Four white males, myself included were traveling in a van across 4 states, Alabama to Texas, to attend a "shooting class." We all agreed to observe the speed limit to avoid any police stops. All told we had 8 AR's, at least 10 pistols, and probably 15,000 rounds of ammo. We all have CCW. IF we had been pulled over for another reason (moving violation or something) and the trooper or police asked to search the van. What do you say? It would have been a ROYAL pain in the ass to unload and reload all that stuff. I suggested that we say something like, "There is no contraband in the vehicle, may we go now." What say you? What level of cooperation is appropriate?
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 3:03:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 5:19:39 PM EDT
Here's a tougher one- I'm traveling from VA to MA with an AR-15 and two Glocks in my locked trunk, totally inaccessible from the passenger compartment. I'm legal in both states. I travel through NYC, and because of 9/11, they have a random vehicle search set up at the GW bridge (I-95). No, this never happened, but I used to crap my pants thinking it would. My guess is that my ass would be in handcuffs and I'd have some 'splanin to do, at the very least.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 6:16:58 PM EDT
Well for the hypothetical situation, assuming you were in fact in compliance with the federal law for interstate transportation, (I would have a copy just in case) you "should" have no problems. I would make sure the guns and ammo were cased in separate containers and locked if possible. This would help keep you away from local strictures. In the first scenario, since my stuff would be packed accordingly, my response would be, "Yeah, several rifles, a few pistols and some ammo. They're all locked up in accordance with the Federal Law on Interstate Transport. If you want to help unpack and repack everything, be my guest. Otherwise we all got better things to be doing with our time."
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 7:26:20 PM EDT
PaDanby- You don't know much about NYC gun laws (and attitude), do you.
Link Posted: 6/21/2003 5:25:01 AM EDT
"Southern Shark" is full of it. Theres no way I'd support any attorney or put any value to what he says when he has a quote at the bottom of the page says "Legalize LSD" I think he's been using the stuff he got off of his clients.
Link Posted: 6/21/2003 8:38:00 PM EDT
Regarding what to do and what to say when the officer "asks" to search and you don't want to give consent for what ever reason (it's your right to say "no"): The US Supreme Court recently (1998) gave a unanimous ruling in favor of the Fourth Amendment stating that '"No" means no' when it comes to consent for LEO to search your car. KNOWLES V. IOWA (97-7597) 525 U.S. 113 (1998). See [url=http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-7597.ZS.html]Knowles V. Iowa[/url] for the syllabus and link to the entire case. I remember at the time of the decision there was some sort of "guide" on how to say "no"; a kind of how-to article (Washington Post?), but I don't recall and haven't searched. I do think that some of the points were "I don't give consent, may I go?" but if the officer insists, insist back "I want your supervisor to perform the search and I want it videotaped." After a brief skim of the original discussion, I think SouthShark needs to (re)take a course on the 6th Amendment. "I'm not a lawyer, I only play one on the net" Cheers, Otto
Link Posted: 6/21/2003 8:41:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By otto_esq: I think SouthShark needs to (re)take a course on the 6th Amendment.
View Quote
Oh, sorry Steve, I see you already made that point on pg.2
Link Posted: 6/21/2003 9:10:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By otto_esq: "I'm not a lawyer, I only play one on the net"
View Quote
And I see someone already beat me to that joke too (sort of, pg.4)
Link Posted: 6/22/2003 2:17:53 AM EDT
1) Always say no to a search request... 2) When asked why, always blame it on your lawyer by saying nicely, "Because my lawyer says I should say NO". It is easier to blame someone else for how you should act (the lawyer) then to say, "Because I don't want you to", etc. On most other questions (use you brain), say, I prefer to not respond and if pushed, say, "My lawyer said I should not answer, thank you." It is easier for someone to blame someone else on why you should not do something when asked. When asked what you lawyers name is, say, "Stevie Shark"! [}:)] (Sorry Steve, but I could not resist!!!)
Top Top