Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Posted: 8/13/2007 3:15:58 PM EDT
A GCO member who is a college student was harassed today on campus by the police for having a banner in his car.  This member is the local area Gun Show Coordinator.  He had the banner in his car from the gun show this last weekend, where he supervised a Recruiting an Information Table.  He made the mistake of having a banner, which says "committed to the preservation & expansion of Georgia citizens' firearms rights," openly visible from outside the car.  Below is his post from another forum.


I parked on campus (TOTALLY unarmed) today for class. I still had the GCO sign from the show in the back seat, as I did not have time to take it into the house last night.

Visible on my backseat were the words "Georgia citizens' firearms rights". Now, I also have an NRA sticker and a GCO sticker on the car.

When I got out of class, there was a University PD officer standing next to my car, writing down the tag number. I approached and said, "Officer XXX, that's my vehicle. Is something wrong?" as I presented my school ID (he's not getting my DL, as I'm not driving at this time).

He said, "Yeah, we got a tip about a car with something related to firearms in it. What's that sign for on your backseat?"

I said, "None of your business. Am I free to go now?"

He said, "It says something about guns, and that's why I got the call. I'm going to search your car."

I replied, "Nope. If you want to go fishing, the river's that way." and pointed in the general direction of my favorite fishing hole.

"But it says something about guns."

I said, "Are you going to search every car on campus with an NRA sticker, too?"

"But son, I'm just trying to do this for your protection. I'm going to search your car now."

I told him that if he wanted to protect anything of mine, he could start with my 4th Amendment rights and stop trying to search my vehicle. I also told him if he could give me any probable cause (or even articulable suspicion) for the search, I would gladly open the vehicle, as there was nothing at all in there for him to find.

He said, "If there really is nothing for me to find, what do you have to hide?"

I told him I had nothing to hide, but he still wasn't searching anything without a warrant. I then demanded to speak to a supervisor if I was going to be detained further.

About 20 minutes, the supervisor shows up. I'm leaning on my car, smoking cigarettes and replying to the inquiries every minute or so as to why he can't search (BECAUSE I SAY SO!). The supervisor gets there and asks the officer what the problem is.

Officer XXX replies, "He's got a sign that says something about guns, and we got a tip from a concerned citizen. I want to search his vehicle and he won't let me. He's also being a smart little sh!t."

I told Sgt. YYY that I have nothing to hide, but no one is searching my vehicle without a warrant. I then asked if I was free to go.

The supervisor said, "You sure you don't have anything in that vehicle that we should be concerned about?"

I said, "Yes, I'm sure. Am I free to go?" (this is at least the 50th time I've asked this now)

He said, "Yes. You might want to take that sign out of your car, though, just so we don't have this problem again."





I'm still a little upset about this.


Source (Corrected)
Link Posted: 8/13/2007 3:51:28 PM EDT
[#1]
Were any dogs harmed?


Link Posted: 8/13/2007 7:34:51 PM EDT
[#2]

Officer XXX replies, "He's got a sign that says something about guns, and we got a tip from a concerned citizen. I want to search his vehicle and he won't let me. He's also being a smart little sh!t."


Smart enough to know and assert his Constitutionally protected rights. Bravo.
Link Posted: 8/14/2007 12:34:11 AM EDT
[#3]
Even though it is still a college campus, I would never have thought of Georgia Southern being the campus that something like this would have happened on.  When I was there I wasn't aware that there even was Campus police until a friend's little sister got in trouble for having beer in her dorm and that was only four years ago.

Good job to this guy for standing up for himself and his rights.  I hope he raises a shit storm like that place has never seen.
Link Posted: 8/14/2007 5:26:47 AM EDT
[#4]
Not positive about GSU, but the local collages around here pretty much make you sign your life away to get a parking permit. IE: search anytime for any or no reason, just because they can.

Good for him for standing up for himself.
Link Posted: 8/14/2007 6:56:09 AM EDT
[#5]
After watching 16 hours (so far) of police interrogations I was beginning to lose hope that anyone had enough brains to actually say "no" to a cop.

"I don't believe you started this, you just got swept along. Don't make the biggest mistake of your life"

"If you want our help, you better tell us the truth now."

"Judges and juries what to see remorse and honesty, they'll see this tape of our conversation."

makes me sick.

If more people knew they had rights in the face of the police (I'm never using the word law enforcement again) examples like Malum's friend would be common place not the surprising exception to the rule. Detained for 20 minutes?!?

(I'm not railing on the good guys out there, but I've had three tragic cases this week and all of the injustice could have been prevented by what this boy did. Too much emphasis on a conviction no concern for justice.)
Link Posted: 8/14/2007 7:12:15 AM EDT
[#6]
I never had any problems with the campus police during my time there.  Everyone that I talked to was extremely nice.  They generally didn't seem to have a problem with guns or shooting.  I'm glad that they never gave me a hard time, because I always kept my HK USP in my car.
Link Posted: 8/14/2007 7:28:44 AM EDT
[#7]

Quoted:
After watching 16 hours (so far) of police interrogations I was beginning to lose hope that anyone had enough brains to actually say "no" to a cop.

"I don't believe you started this, you just got swept along. Don't make the biggest mistake of your life"

"If you want our help, you better tell us the truth now."

"Judges and juries what to see remorse and honesty, they'll see this tape of our conversation."

makes me sick.

If more people knew they had rights in the face of the police (I'm never using the word law enforcement again) examples like Malum's friend would be common place not the surprising exception to the rule. Detained for 20 minutes?!?

(I'm not railing on the good guys out there, but I've had three tragic cases this week and all of the injustice could have been prevented by what this boy did. Too much emphasis on a conviction no concern for justice.)


coercive leading questions.  I see how a law-fearing good honest man would make a mistake here to this kind of questions, while a diehard criminal (like Scarface ) would just smoke a cigar, play his balls, and get off the hook.

All the more reason to play more poker.
Link Posted: 8/14/2007 7:37:28 AM EDT
[#8]
I had a case a while back where the interrogating officer told a 16 year old boy

"What you did that's a moral sin. And that means your going to hell. You've got once chance to make this right."

If I remember my Thomas Aquinas right mortal sins are sins which if not confessed leads to eternal separation from god and eternal suffering. SIXTEEN YEARS OLD! Two o'clock in the morning, no parents, some fair interrogation techniques.

(G.A. S.C. refused to grant an interlocutory appeal. Will be an issue after the trial).
Link Posted: 8/14/2007 7:37:30 AM EDT
[#9]

Quoted:
After watching 16 hours (so far) of police interrogations I was beginning to lose hope that anyone had enough brains to actually say "no" to a cop.

"I don't believe you started this, you just got swept along. Don't make the biggest mistake of your life"

"If you want our help, you better tell us the truth now."

"Judges and juries what to see remorse and honesty, they'll see this tape of our conversation."

makes me sick.

If more people knew they had rights in the face of the police (I'm never using the word law enforcement again) examples like Malum's friend would be common place not the surprising exception to the rule. Detained for 20 minutes?!?

(I'm not railing on the good guys out there, but I've had three tragic cases this week and all of the injustice could have been prevented by what this boy did. Too much emphasis on a conviction no concern for justice.)


Doug, I'm sorry-but I take offense to that. Just as there are plenty of people who thinks that Defense Attorney's are blood suckers trying to get their clients off on "technicalities"-you have a job to do also. In no place in any of the quotes that you posted above is there any force or promise of benefit (like going home or being found not guilty). I've used the jist of them before as they are interview/interrogation techniques that are taught nationwide.
The fact that the police (or Law Enforcement, as you won't be calling them) are already talking to your clients means that they already have enough suspicion to talk to them in the first place. If you want to blame anybody or anything-blame the education system and parents for not making the clients pay attention in a civics class, etc.
Now, if you were to take what the original poster had posted at face value is horse shit. The Officer clearly had no Probable Cause or even Articulable Suspicion to search the car. If what happened is what the original poster said-the officer needs to get out of his line of work or go back through an academy. There's a reason why campus police or those like them aren't as highly regarded amongst those in law enforcement-it's because it's where some that can't get hired elsewhere go to for employment.


I've said it before and I'll say it again-make the Government work for their case against you-but I'm not about to go down to the ghetto and hold a street forum to make sure that potential clients know that.
Link Posted: 8/14/2007 7:49:16 AM EDT
[#10]
Let me apologize to you Lawman. I'm frustrated and angry but did not mean to attack you personally.

I don't mean to rail on you guys who are just doing your job, but in an interrogation where the suspect has repeated for twenty minutes I wasn't there and I don't know anything about it. It's frustrating and rings hollow. I know they are the standard techniques. That's part of what frustrating. The best part is when interrogators lie about found evidence and other witnesses statements. Interrogators can lie, suspects cant.

We all have a job to do. Some people do it well with consideration. I'll say most on both sides do not.

I'll put up a counter story to be fair and balanced. Had a client who was flat out guilty of Felony theft. I spoke with the prosecutor they wanted 5 do 1. I called the detective and he sided with me saying it was too much. He called the DA and asked them to do diversion. I was flat out shocked. Never dealt with another attorney who was as concerned about doing what was right as this Detective was.

But for every good defense attorney and good detective out there, I'll say there are five bad ones. People who want to manipulate the system to get their ends. People who do not care about the truth of the incident. Prosecutors who won't dismiss even though they have no proof because of the severity of the case. Officers who harass based on bumper stickers, and yes defense attorneys who cover up incriminating evidence that comes into their possession through discovery.
Link Posted: 8/14/2007 7:52:50 AM EDT
[#11]

Quoted:
Let me apologize to you Lawman. I'm frustrated and angry but did not mean to attack you personally.


It's all good brother, didn't mean to jump down your throat either-been a lot going on lately.

Link Posted: 8/14/2007 8:27:52 AM EDT
[#12]
did the original GCO thread get trashed or moved?

as far as the 20min detainment...from the quoted post, i find it unclear from the OP's conditional supervisor request whether he would have been detained much further...he did make a supervisor request, so the additional time for the supervisor to arrive is most likely "on him".  (20min detainment, if articulated properly, is easily found reasonable.)

+1 to Lawman's comments.

working on the edge of the Rule of Law can be trying for all involved.  defense attorneys, arresting officers, and investigators tend to be more invested in the defendant's outcome, moreso than prosecutors or even judges.  not surprising considering the amount of contact time and focus on the individual defendant.

no offense intended, DKing, since i doubt this will ever be the case with you, but my experience with many in legal defense is this...there are good/great attys that can zealously defend (or even prosecute) without needing to believe in the story they are selling to the jury....then there are those attys that cannot operate without convincing themselves of the "truth" of what their argument is and get completely bent around that axle that they lose objectivity.

it is unfortunate when events like this (if all is how the OP posted) occur from LEO's, and it is unfortunate when one is on the phone until the wee hours of the morning with an ADA that is trying to insert elements into a code section where none exist, ....ad infinitum.

i have always kept my expectations of all people extremely low, and i am less likely to be disappointed.

my apologies for the disjointed nature of this post.  i do Mr. Mom duty when i'm off "the job".
Link Posted: 8/14/2007 9:25:21 AM EDT
[#13]
I know 20 minutes is legally reasonable even without a request for a supervisor. But it's still BS.

Lawman you've always been a stand up guy and that why it bothered me that I offended you. You're not the people I'm thinking of.

The GCO thread did not get trashed because Malum runs the forum. He would have told us.
Link Posted: 8/14/2007 9:31:46 AM EDT
[#14]

Quoted:
The GCO thread did not get trashed because Malum runs the forum. He would have told us.


i get this when i click the Source link above:
"The topic or post you requested does not exist"

Link Posted: 8/14/2007 10:35:22 AM EDT
[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The GCO thread did not get trashed because Malum runs the forum. He would have told us.


i get this when i click the Source link above:
"The topic or post you requested does not exist"


Corrected
Link Posted: 8/14/2007 10:39:10 AM EDT
[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Let me apologize to you Lawman. I'm frustrated and angry but did not mean to attack you personally.


It's all good brother, didn't mean to jump down your throat either-been a lot going on lately.



Well I'm glad. A busy week for you in August means a better Christmas for my family
Link Posted: 8/14/2007 10:44:08 AM EDT
[#17]

Quoted:
I know 20 minutes is legally reasonable even without a request for a supervisor. But it's still BS.

The GCO thread did not get trashed because Malum runs the forum. He would have told us.


DKing, 20 minutes is not reasonable unless there is something to investigate.  A sign does not count.

The link is to GPDO, and it is fixed now.  I do not run that site (although I am a moderator).  

There was a story on GCO, but I never linked it here.  That story has been removed at the request of the individual who was detained, as he fears having his identity publicized, and he wants GCO to cease its efforts.

 I was already lining up litigation and public relations efforts . . .

The thought of police detaining somebody because of a stupid sign in the backseat of a car really burns me up, but I must respect his wishes.
Link Posted: 8/14/2007 10:56:27 AM EDT
[#18]
   There are three levels of police-citizen encounters: (1) police-citizen communication involving no coercion or detention and therefore outside the ambit of the Fourth Amendment; (2) brief investigatory stops that must be supported by reasonable suspicion; and (3) arrests, which must be supported by probable cause.(fn2)

   In the first tier, police officers may approach citizens, ask for identification, and freely question the citizen without any basis or belief that the citizen is involved in criminal activity, as long as the officers do not detain the citizen or create the impression that the citizen may not leave. The second tier occurs when the officer actually conducts a brief investigative Terry stop of the citizen. In this level, a police officer, even in the absence of probable cause, may stop persons and detain them briefly, when the officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the persons are involved in criminal activity.(fn3)

     In addition, "[t]he actions of an officer approaching a stopped vehicle, requesting to see a driver's license, and inquiring about possible criminal or suspicious activity clearly fall within the realm of the first type of police-citizen encounter and do not amount to a stop."(fn4) In Palmer v. State,(fn5) we held that even without a basis for suspecting a person, the police may ask questions, request identification, and request consent to search, so long as they do not convey the message that compliance is required.(fn6) Whether an incident qualifies as a first-tier encounter is a mixed question of fact and law, and we will sustain the trial court's findings of fact if there is any evidence to support them.(fn7)
Link Posted: 8/14/2007 11:01:52 AM EDT
[#19]

Quoted:
DKing, 20 minutes is not reasonable unless there is something to investigate.  A sign does not count.


The Officer had neither articulable suspicion or probable cause to indicate that a crime is occurring or has been committed. In this case it's a consentual encounter. When the citizen asked if he was free to go-he was. The Officer avoided answering the question and continued asking his own-but if the citizen up and chose to leave, there wouldn't have been a damned thing the officer could have done about it. The citizen demanded to speak to a superviser, which took 20min to arrive. He could have left at any time. Now, what the school rules are-I have no idea but the worst he could have looked at would be expelled I imagine.

If the citizen chose to leave and the officer detain him by force, then you would have big time cause for a lawsuit.


ETA: DKing beat me to it, but with lawyer speak to back it up
Link Posted: 8/14/2007 11:02:56 AM EDT
[#20]
Didn't I just say that.
Link Posted: 8/14/2007 11:03:02 AM EDT
[#21]

Quoted:
we held that even without a basis for suspecting a person, the police may ask questions, request identification, and request consent to search, so long as they do not convey the message that compliance is required.




Guess what, DKing?  You can do the same thing, too!  

When you say "20 minutes is reasonable," you are no longer talking about a consensual encounter.

Keep in mind that the first words out of this now-unindentified-individual's mouth were "None of your business.  Am I free to leave."

The answer did not strike me as free to leave.  Most people would not assume they are free to leave if the officer tells them he IS going to search.

The last words out of the individual's mouth were, again, a request that he be allowed to leave.  The last time it was granted, but only with a departing threat should he bring that evil GCO banner on campus again.

I reiterate that the police may not detain someone for twenty minutes, or even 20 seconds, based on nothing more than a sign in a car mentioning firearms rights.
Link Posted: 8/14/2007 11:06:08 AM EDT
[#22]

Quoted:
In this case it's a consentual encounter. When the citizen asked if he was free to go-he was.


Lawman, I would have left, but I was a police officer for 12 years.  Because it sounds like you are a police officer, I think you underestimate how the regular citizen feels when receiving a reply like this.

"Am I free to go?"

He said, "It says something about guns, and that's why I got the call. I'm going to search your car."

That does not sound like he is free to go.

People are afraid of getting Tasered nowadays.
Link Posted: 8/14/2007 11:11:16 AM EDT
[#23]

Quoted:
Guess what, DKing?  You can do the same thing, too!  

When you say "20 minutes is reasonable," you are no longer talking about a consensual encounter.

He was free to leave, the only reason that the 20min entered the equation was because he asked to speak with a supervisor.

Keep in mind that the first words out of this now-unindentified-individual's mouth were "None of your business.  Am I free to leave."

And he was, the officer didn't answer him and continued speaking with him. As a citizen, the thing to do would be reiterate the question until the officer answered it. The only other time he asked was when the supervisor arrived.

The answer did not strike me as free to leave.  Most people would not assume they are free to leave if the officer tells them he IS going to search.

The officer said that he would search the car, and the citizen said absolutely not. Then the officer tried to reason with the citizen as to why he should be allowed to search the car. Besides the initial statement by the officer, his reasoning afterward obviously showed that he wouldn't be allowed to without some sort of consent.

The last words out of the individual's mouth were, again, a request that he be allowed to leave.  The last time it was granted, but only with a departing threat should he bring that evil GCO banner on campus again.

Threat? Please, if some gun-scared citizen called in the complaint it just might keep it from happening again. I'd hardly call it a "threat".

I reiterate that the police may not detain someone for twenty minutes, or even 20 seconds, based on nothing more than a sign in a car mentioning firearms rights.

He wasn't detained-once again the only reason the 20min occured was because he asked for a supervisor. During that time the officer spoke with him some more. If the citizen chose to leave, he had every right to do so.
Link Posted: 8/14/2007 11:15:37 AM EDT
[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
In this case it's a consentual encounter. When the citizen asked if he was free to go-he was.


Lawman, I would have left, but I was a police officer for 12 years.  Because it sounds like you are a police officer, I think you underestimate how the regular citizen feels when receiving a reply like this.

"Am I free to go?"

He said, "It says something about guns, and that's why I got the call. I'm going to search your car."

That does not sound like he is free to go.

People are afraid of getting Tasered nowadays.


And the officer never answered the question. I associate with more people than just cops, so I'm well aware of how they feel. When the officer never directly answered the question, he should have asked again.

Is the fact that this occurred bullshit? Absolutely, but you are making a big stink about the "detention" when there was none. Nothing came of it and he was free to go. If charges were made as a result of an illegal search, or he was detained by force then you know that things would very much be illegal and would be thrown out in court in a pre-trial discovery hearing to be followed by a civil case for his troubles.
Link Posted: 8/14/2007 11:23:21 AM EDT
[#25]
Just so I am clear, when you tell a subject you have stopped that you ARE going to search, he is actually free to leave?

I just need to know in case I am ever in this situation.

Link Posted: 8/14/2007 11:25:31 AM EDT
[#26]
The great equalizer "nothing came of it". I realized that a long time ago. Unfortunately some of the most outrageous behavior occurs because nothing came of it. I realize that officer did nothing more then I could do. But it's the color of office that changes things. Remember all the old movies where the sheriff or Sargent says, "I'll leave the badge on the table and see you out back". We'll that's the way people look at this. When you have a badge they do what they are told. Wit ha badge you're a superior and you carry a threat about your person.

If I lie to Malum what can he do about it? If I lie to Lawman I'm guilty of obstruction. I hit Malum I'm guilty of a misdemeanor, I hit Lawman I'm guilty of a felony. With great power comes great responsibility. Part of that responsibility is not playing close to the lines. That's what bothers me. The mind games, the simple tricks, why bother? (Frustration leaks out again)
Link Posted: 8/14/2007 11:32:36 AM EDT
[#27]

Quoted:
Just so I am clear, when you tell a subject you have stopped that you ARE going to search, he is actually free to leave?

I just need to know in case I am ever in this situation.



No, because I'm not stupid enough to tell someone that I'll be searching their vehicle unless I have a reason to. In that case, no they are not allowed to leave and will be told that if asked (if they aren't already in cuffs or I didn't tell them yet). In a consentual search, the citizen is free to go at any time, at which time I stop and let him go.
However in this case, we have an astute citizen who knows what's going on and already told the officer that no, he would not be allowed to search the car. The officer fell back from his initially strong position to attempt to talk the citizen into allowing a search, which obviously failed. When the citizen knew that the officer had no leg to stand on, he asked if he was free to leave, which the officer declined to answer. I don't know about you, but when I ask a specific question I would like an answer. That applies double when I am inconvenienced (such as this case) in which case I would be asking the question until I received the appropriate answer.
When the officer didn't answer the question the one and only time that it was asked, the citizen demanded a supervisor in which case it was asked again and he received a response followed by the "threat".
Link Posted: 8/14/2007 11:34:00 AM EDT
[#28]

Quoted:
No, because I'm not stupid enough to tell someone that I'll be searching their vehicle unless I have a reason to. In that case, no they are not allowed to leave.


I believe you!  I don't even feel free to leave right now!  
Link Posted: 8/14/2007 11:53:02 AM EDT
[#29]

Quoted:
The mind games, the simple tricks, why bother? (Frustration leaks out again)


Easy there. I know it's frustrating but you have to be strong.

I suggest you go shoot 200 rounds & call us in the morning. =)
Link Posted: 8/14/2007 11:55:28 AM EDT
[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
No, because I'm not stupid enough to tell someone that I'll be searching their vehicle unless I have a reason to. In that case, no they are not allowed to leave.


I believe you!  I don't even feel free to leave right now!  


Ok, now you're just being silly

I once did a traffic stop in an area known for being a "high crime area" while working within my current unit. When I checked the driver, it showed that he was currently on Felony probation. When I asked the driver what he was on probation for, he advised it was for Agg. Assault with a gun and VGCSA. I asked if he minded that I search his car at which time he said (rather perturbed) "Yes, I do". I calmly explained to him that all I did was ask and that he had every right to decline. Since I already handed him his license and insurance, he was free to go and left. That's the way the game is played, and you have to play by the rules.

When I explained how the stop went later to a co-worker, he said "oh, you should have call called me over there, I could have gotten you into that car" and said that he would have basically threatened the driver by asking what his Probation Ofc. would have thought about the driver not cooperating, etc. I explained to my coworker that I don't play that way but could have said the same crap if I was inclined to. There are many different ways you can ask someone for consent to search, but the bottom line is that there has to be a simple request for consent followed by an answer from the citizen. Anytime you have to "talk a citizen into it" or anything like that, it's no longer consentual if he says yes based on a condition.

In the above case, a smart Defense Attorney would have been all over it if I had played the way my coworker had suggested it-just as much as if the officer had steam rolled the citizen and searched without consent in the original scenario.

Link Posted: 8/14/2007 12:00:38 PM EDT
[#31]

Quoted:
I don't know about you, but when I ask a specific question I would like an answer.


I know how you FEEL!!

I got to go look for my transcript where the officer being questioned was more then a little evasive. The officer didn't understand a single question put to him in more then 15 minutes of questioning.
Link Posted: 8/14/2007 12:42:06 PM EDT
[#32]
This wasn't a normal encounter with the Police where one is free to go with no recriminations.

He was "entertained" by the University Police on University property.   I'm sure somewhere, in some handbook or on some form, that he waived his 4th Amendment rights for the privilege to park on the University property.  Even if he didn't, he was exposed to discipline from the University if he drove off before the Officer told him he could leave, including expulsion or loss of parking privileges.   Until that officer told him explicitly to leave, he had to stay and ride out the storm.   This is different than an encounter session with the Police on public roads.

Considering what he at risk (his degree) and the position of the officer, he certainly wasn't a free man at that moment.  He handled a bad situation very well.

I understand that the man doesn't want to take the issue further and I respect that.  Someday, someone has to stand up and fight the "innocent till proven gun owner" policies of the government and businesses.

GCO did offer to handle the matter, actually really really wanted to take his case.


Link Posted: 8/16/2007 4:12:41 AM EDT
[#33]

Quoted:
The great equalizer "nothing came of it". I realized that a long time ago. Unfortunately some of the most outrageous behavior occurs because nothing came of it. I realize that officer did nothing more then I could do. But it's the color of office that changes things. Remember all the old movies where the sheriff or Sargent says, "I'll leave the badge on the table and see you out back". We'll that's the way people look at this. When you have a badge they do what they are told. Wit ha badge you're a superior and you carry a threat about your person.

If I lie to Malum what can he do about it? If I lie to Lawman I'm guilty of obstruction. I hit Malum I'm guilty of a misdemeanor, I hit Lawman I'm guilty of a felony. With great power comes great responsibility. Part of that responsibility is not playing close to the lines. That's what bothers me. The mind games, the simple tricks, why bother? (Frustration leaks out again)


Well said.  
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top