Around the NFL

[LayneStaley]

No clue where to post some stuff not necessarily team related but could be? Feel free to delete if this belongs somewhere else.



Maxx and Parsons would be nasty. I probably wouldn’t pay the price though.

[Attyla]

One of two things will happen. (1)The cop will back down, in which case I have accomplished my objective. Or (2)He will double down and insist that I turn off the engine. At that point I can comply because I have also accomplished my objective. My objective is not to defy his order. My objective is to preserve my constitutional rights before I comply by having a video record of the exchange that shows that I have not voluntarily relinquished any of my 4th amendment rights.

Again you are wrong. Pennsylvania vs Mimms established that your 4th amendment right is not violated if he asks you to shut off your engine, and you sovereign citizens have been proven wrong on that repeatedly.

[Hellbound]

I actually wouldnt mind bringing him back cheap as depth.

I thought you didn't like scab players!

[BoKnows81]

I thought you didn't like scab players!

Wtf are you even talking about? Scab?

[Hellbound]

Wtf are you even talking about? Scab?

Gotdamn auto correct. Supposed to say scrub players not scab

[Atlasffa]

[Cruisin with Tooz]

Again you are wrong. Pennsylvania vs Mimms established that your 4th amendment right is not violated if he asks you to shut off your engine, and you sovereign citizens have been proven wrong on that repeatedly.

1.Dude, just stop. Because as usual, you are completely wrong. Mimms says absolutely nothing about the legality of a police order to turn off your engine or any effect that such an order would have on your rights. Zero, zip, zilch, nada. The issue settled in Mimms was whether or not a cop can order you out of your car and pat you down for "officer safety" reasons. Mimms is what establishes that police can do that. That’s it. That’s all that Mimms says. I hate to disillusion you, but you cant just randomly cite a SC case and claim it says something it doesn’t, unless your only goal is to fool some high fivers who cant even be bothered to type "Mimms" into a google search box to fact check the BS that you are spewing. There are no on-point SCOTUS cases that address how compliance with an engine off order affects your rights.

2. I think Ill go with the lawyer’s advice over yours.



3. You shouldn’t use terms you don’t understand. This is what a sovereign citizen believes:

https://www.google.com/search?q=soverei ... s-wiz-serp

You know squat about me, so stop pretending that you do. I do not share a single belief or tactic in common with the belief system in that Google framework. What you do know about me from this exchange is that I have not supported any position other than the 4th amendment to the Constitution and SCOTUS’s interpretation of it. That means I accept the legitimacy of the Constitution and the Court -- in obvious contradistinction to what a sovereign citizen believes. And I also insist that a public servant, in their dealings with me, does not encroach upon my rights under their color of authority. To someone without any ability to think critically, that makes me a sovereign citizen. But someone with even a small modicum of that ability would call that patriotism.

[Attyla]

1.Dude, just stop. Because as usual, you are completely wrong. Mimms says absolutely nothing about the legality of a police order to turn off your engine or any effect that such an order would have on your rights. Zero, zip, zilch, nada. The issue settled in Mimms was whether or not a cop can order you out of your car and pat you down for "officer safety" reasons. Mimms is what establishes that police can do that. That’s it. That’s all that Mimms says. I hate to disillusion you, but you cant just randomly cite a SC case and claim it says something it doesn’t, unless your only goal is to fool some high fivers who cant even be bothered to type "Mimms" into a google search box to fact check the BS that you are spewing. There are no on-point SCOTUS cases that address how compliance with an engine off order affects your rights.

2. I think Ill go with the lawyer’s advice over yours.



3. You shouldn’t use terms you don’t understand. This is what a sovereign citizen believes:

https://www.google.com/search?q=soverei ... s-wiz-serp

You know squat about me, so stop pretending that you do. I do not share a single belief or tactic in common with the belief system in that Google framework. What you do know about me from this exchange is that I have not supported any position other than the 4th amendment to the Constitution and SCOTUS’s interpretation of it. That means I accept the legitimacy of the Constitution and the Court -- in obvious contradistinction to what a sovereign citizen believes. And I also insist that a public servant, in their dealings with me, does not encroach upon my rights under their color of authority. To someone without any ability to think critically, that makes me a sovereign citizen. But someone with even a small modicum of that ability would call that patriotism.

Actually Mimms applies. The court further interpreted the ruling to apply not only to exiting the vehicle but to any order the cop gives that ensures his safety. There you go, sovereign citizen. Short and sweet. Let me know next time you get stopped and tell the cop you are not shutting off your vehicle. Probably from jail.

[chucker]

I suspect that most people are bored of this legal conversation right now. Just stop and get back to the NFL or don't post in the thread at all. Thanks.

[RaiderandBulldog]

[16 to 88]

I suspect that most people are bored of this legal conversation right now. Just stop and get back to the NFL or don't post in the thread at all. Thanks.

Just don't order me to turn off my computer.

[Atlasffa]

[Goodtimes333]

I wanted the Raiders to sign Andrew Billings back in FA. Would have filled a serious need at a low price. He mangled that poor bastard

[mranquales]

I wanted the Raiders to sign Andrew Billings back in FA. Would have filled a serious need at a low price. He mangled that poor bastard

No idea why we didn't keep Billings.

[BoKnows81]

Billings is 31 years old and was playing with and against a bunch of backups in the HOF game. We'll live.

[Goodtimes333]

Billings is 31 years old and was playing with and against a bunch of backups in the HOF game. We'll live.

31 is ancient for a nose tackle eh? Vita Vea is 31. Billings played really well on a nothing contract with the Raiders before and then parlayed that into a decent deal with the Bears. I'll take Billings all day long over a Benito Jones. Are the Raiders better with an Andrew Billings on a minimal contract? Absolutely, IMO.

Also, ain't nobody hyping him up simply from wrecking someone's day in pre season. Dude has years of proven ability. It's not a mountain and it's not a mole hill. The Raiders have a big question mark at nose and we all know it. It's off-season conversation