still think this is the USA you remember?

In article >, jaybird wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>
>>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> If the government, the police were more transparent, then maybe you'd
>>>>>> have something. By dumbing up, it only makes me believe they did
>>>>>> something they shouldn't have.
>>>>
>>>>> They're not silent, they just don't have to give you a phone call after
>>>>> every arrest.
>>>>
>>>> Didn't say they had to. Of course, they should probably respond to the
>>>> news media so people know. Instead they go silent. What would you think
>>>> about me if you started questioning me and I just refused to answer? Be
>>>> honest now, officer.
>>
>>> I'd finish my paperwork and let you tell it to the judge.
>>
>> Translation: automatic arrest.
>
> Yeah, pretty much. I have enough to arrest you on, I don't really need a
> statement unless you want to give one.

See that's a police state jaybird. Where the people have to be
transparent to the government and the government is secret and powerful.



>>> And they did
>>> respond to the media by saying that he was not on his property and he was
>>> not arrested for anything having to do with a phone.

>> That's a denial. It doesn't say what occured.

> Yes it does. It says that the offense occured in a place which was not his
> property and had nothing to do with his phone.

That's a denial. Then again, expecting a cop to understand anything is
like expecting my type writer to understand the words typed on it. Both
are just machines doing what they're told.

>>
>>
>>>>> The cover sheet listing the charges can be obtained through
>>>>> an open records request and is done all the time by the media,
>>>>> attorneys,
>>>>> etc.
>>>>
>>>> Records requests are often denied, cost money, etc and so forth. It's
>>>> basically a way to deter people from knowing what is going on.
>>
>>> No, they can't refuse you anything that is public record and the cost is
>>> a
>>> couple of bucks.
>>
>> Bull****. Not in this era of the national security state.

> Easy with the profanity. Go to your local police department and try it. No
> need to get all worked up.

How about you become a thinking human being for a change instead of a
drone? Sure, they'll let out some traffic collision report or something
equally blah. Anything that might be harmful to them will be denied or
redacted or just outright falsified.

>>>>> No one is dumbing anything up, and all of the court records can be
>>>>> obtained after trial.

>>>> Not if there isn't one. Cops can hassle people without a trial. Then
>>>> again, we have a federal government that wants secret trials now.
>>
>>> Let's stick to the topic at hand.
>>
>> You opened the door some posts ago.
>
> No, I never mentioned secret federal trials.

You just don't get it. With cops like you it's a wonder we aren't already
in a nation where people just disappear for political reasons.

In article >, jaybird wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>
>>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> barking pumpkin > said in rec.autos.driving:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>jaybird wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can't arrest someone for no stated reason. The complaint and
>>>>>>>> affidavit
>>>>>>>> have to have an arrest title, etc. I'd wait and see what those say
>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>> you start blindly believing this story.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Why don't you attempt to find out all the facts before you start
>>>>>>>blindly
>>>>>>>defending the cops?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because (to borrow a bit of police jargon) that's Jaybird's MO. He is
>>>>>> always ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that whatever a cop does is done with very
>>>>>> good reasons, and we the public just don't know (or are not entitled
>>>>>> to know) what those reasons are.
>>>>>
>>>>> On the contrary, I'm quite certain that the cops are secure in what
>>>>> they
>>>>> did. One of the reasons that I post here is to try and give a
>>>>> perspective
>>>>> from that viewpoint, although it's not always what everyone wants to
>>>>> hear.
>>>>
>>>> Funny that several people here are against the government and its police
>>>> operating in secret or near secret.
>>
>>> Public information is not a secret.
>>
>> You just define everything you don't want public as not being public
>> information. However there should be no such thing as private government
>> information when the government is for the people, by the people.
>
> It has nothing to do with the government. It has to do with the information
> of the suspects, witnesses, and other information that they may not want to
> be public. Everything that the government does in a case is public
> information.

It's public information unless the government doesn't want to share it.
Thanks for agreeing.

>>>> Government needs to be transparent to the people, not the people
>>>> transparent to the government. You believe in the later, myself and
>>>> others believe in the former.
>>
>>> The court proceedings are not hidden. Anyone can find out the charge and
>>> dispostion of an offense.
>>
>> the classic jaybird dodge.

> Yep. You should try and take my advice sometime and see how true it really
> is.

You live in some sort of fantasy land.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>
>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>>>> . ..
>>>>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> barking pumpkin > said in rec.autos.driving:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>jaybird wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can't arrest someone for no stated reason. The complaint and
>>>>>>>>> affidavit
>>>>>>>>> have to have an arrest title, etc. I'd wait and see what those
>>>>>>>>> say
>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>> you start blindly believing this story.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Why don't you attempt to find out all the facts before you start
>>>>>>>>blindly
>>>>>>>>defending the cops?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because (to borrow a bit of police jargon) that's Jaybird's MO. He
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> always ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that whatever a cop does is done with very
>>>>>>> good reasons, and we the public just don't know (or are not entitled
>>>>>>> to know) what those reasons are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the contrary, I'm quite certain that the cops are secure in what
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> did. One of the reasons that I post here is to try and give a
>>>>>> perspective
>>>>>> from that viewpoint, although it's not always what everyone wants to
>>>>>> hear.
>>>>>
>>>>> Funny that several people here are against the government and its
>>>>> police
>>>>> operating in secret or near secret.
>>>
>>>> Public information is not a secret.
>>>
>>> You just define everything you don't want public as not being public
>>> information. However there should be no such thing as private government
>>> information when the government is for the people, by the people.
>>
>> It has nothing to do with the government. It has to do with the
>> information
>> of the suspects, witnesses, and other information that they may not want
>> to
>> be public. Everything that the government does in a case is public
>> information.
>
> It's public information unless the government doesn't want to share it.
> Thanks for agreeing.

You're welcome.... I guess. Read up on the Freedom of Information Act.
That'll tell you what's public and what isn't.

>
>>>>> Government needs to be transparent to the people, not the people
>>>>> transparent to the government. You believe in the later, myself and
>>>>> others believe in the former.
>>>
>>>> The court proceedings are not hidden. Anyone can find out the charge
>>>> and
>>>> dispostion of an offense.
>>>
>>> the classic jaybird dodge.
>
>> Yep. You should try and take my advice sometime and see how true it
>> really
>> is.
>
> You live in some sort of fantasy land.

Cool!

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of
evil men." - Edmund Burke

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> "jaybird" > said in rec.autos.driving:
>
>>
>>"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> barking pumpkin > said in rec.autos.driving:
>>>
>>>>jaybird wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You can't arrest someone for no stated reason. The complaint and
>>>>> affidavit
>>>>> have to have an arrest title, etc. I'd wait and see what those say
>>>>> before
>>>>> you start blindly believing this story.
>>>>
>>>>Why don't you attempt to find out all the facts before you start blindly
>>>>defending the cops?
>>>
>>> Because (to borrow a bit of police jargon) that's Jaybird's MO. He is
>>> always ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that whatever a cop does is done with very
>>> good reasons, and we the public just don't know (or are not entitled
>>> to know) what those reasons are.
>>
>>On the contrary, I'm quite certain that the cops are secure in what they
>>did.
>
> You used the word "contrary," and yet you agreed with what I said.
>
> WTF?

Yeah, it looks like I did. I must've been sleepy.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of
evil men." - Edmund Burke

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>
>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>>>> . ..
>>>>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the government, the police were more transparent, then maybe
>>>>>>> you'd
>>>>>>> have something. By dumbing up, it only makes me believe they did
>>>>>>> something they shouldn't have.
>>>>>
>>>>>> They're not silent, they just don't have to give you a phone call
>>>>>> after
>>>>>> every arrest.
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't say they had to. Of course, they should probably respond to the
>>>>> news media so people know. Instead they go silent. What would you
>>>>> think
>>>>> about me if you started questioning me and I just refused to answer?
>>>>> Be
>>>>> honest now, officer.
>>>
>>>> I'd finish my paperwork and let you tell it to the judge.
>>>
>>> Translation: automatic arrest.
>>
>> Yeah, pretty much. I have enough to arrest you on, I don't really need a
>> statement unless you want to give one.
>
> See that's a police state jaybird. Where the people have to be
> transparent to the government and the government is secret and powerful.

No, that's called probable cause. You have that right under the Miranda
act.

>>>> And they did
>>>> respond to the media by saying that he was not on his property and he
>>>> was
>>>> not arrested for anything having to do with a phone.
>
>>> That's a denial. It doesn't say what occured.
>
>> Yes it does. It says that the offense occured in a place which was not
>> his
>> property and had nothing to do with his phone.
>
> That's a denial. Then again, expecting a cop to understand anything is
> like expecting my type writer to understand the words typed on it. Both
> are just machines doing what they're told.

No, it's a statement. Why are you only willing to listen to one side of the
story?

>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> The cover sheet listing the charges can be obtained through
>>>>>> an open records request and is done all the time by the media,
>>>>>> attorneys,
>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Records requests are often denied, cost money, etc and so forth. It's
>>>>> basically a way to deter people from knowing what is going on.
>>>
>>>> No, they can't refuse you anything that is public record and the cost
>>>> is
>>>> a
>>>> couple of bucks.
>>>
>>> Bull****. Not in this era of the national security state.
>
>> Easy with the profanity. Go to your local police department and try it.
>> No
>> need to get all worked up.
>
> How about you become a thinking human being for a change instead of a
> drone? Sure, they'll let out some traffic collision report or something
> equally blah. Anything that might be harmful to them will be denied or
> redacted or just outright falsified.

Nope. Again, read up on the Freedom of Information Act.

>
>>>>>> No one is dumbing anything up, and all of the court records can be
>>>>>> obtained after trial.
>
>>>>> Not if there isn't one. Cops can hassle people without a trial. Then
>>>>> again, we have a federal government that wants secret trials now.
>>>
>>>> Let's stick to the topic at hand.
>>>
>>> You opened the door some posts ago.
>>
>> No, I never mentioned secret federal trials.
>
> You just don't get it. With cops like you it's a wonder we aren't already
> in a nation where people just disappear for political reasons.

Dealing with people like you is what makes people like me appear that way.
You're throwing all kinds of insults, and always have, and I'm going to
defend against them. I know I'm honest in my job and I'm not going to let
people like you spread malice just because you don't like cops.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of
evil men." - Edmund Burke

In article >, jaybird wrote:
> "Brent P" > wrote in message

> You're welcome.... I guess. Read up on the Freedom of Information Act.
> That'll tell you what's public and what isn't.

Ahh... the freedom of information farce... Get the document but all but
two words are blacked out and those are "the", "a".

You are apparently all for transparency of citizens to the
police/government but not the other way around.

In article >, jaybird wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>
>>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>>> . ..
>>>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>>>>> . ..
>>>>>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If the government, the police were more transparent, then maybe
>>>>>>>> you'd
>>>>>>>> have something. By dumbing up, it only makes me believe they did
>>>>>>>> something they shouldn't have.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They're not silent, they just don't have to give you a phone call
>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>> every arrest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Didn't say they had to. Of course, they should probably respond to the
>>>>>> news media so people know. Instead they go silent. What would you
>>>>>> think
>>>>>> about me if you started questioning me and I just refused to answer?
>>>>>> Be
>>>>>> honest now, officer.
>>>>
>>>>> I'd finish my paperwork and let you tell it to the judge.
>>>>
>>>> Translation: automatic arrest.
>>>
>>> Yeah, pretty much. I have enough to arrest you on, I don't really need a
>>> statement unless you want to give one.
>>
>> See that's a police state jaybird. Where the people have to be
>> transparent to the government and the government is secret and powerful.
>
> No, that's called probable cause. You have that right under the Miranda
> act.

Exactly. Not answering a cops questions is reason for suspicion alone.

>> That's a denial. Then again, expecting a cop to understand anything is
>> like expecting my type writer to understand the words typed on it. Both
>> are just machines doing what they're told.

> No, it's a statement. Why are you only willing to listen to one side of the
> story?

Side 1: Detailed story.
Side 2: 'That didn't happen'

Hmmm....

>> How about you become a thinking human being for a change instead of a
>> drone? Sure, they'll let out some traffic collision report or something
>> equally blah. Anything that might be harmful to them will be denied or
>> redacted or just outright falsified.

> Nope. Again, read up on the Freedom of Information Act.



Document on Albert Eistein's participation in a scientific project in the
1940s.



FBI document on Nicola Tesla.

These men were scientists / inventors. They've been dead for decades.

Note the date on the Telsa document, 1943.

The freedom of information act is a farce.

>> You just don't get it. With cops like you it's a wonder we aren't already
>> in a nation where people just disappear for political reasons.

> Dealing with people like you is what makes people like me appear that way.
> You're throwing all kinds of insults, and always have, and I'm going to
> defend against them. I know I'm honest in my job and I'm not going to let
> people like you spread malice just because you don't like cops.

Insults? You don't like being called a drone? Because that's about the
worst thing I've called you and the only thing I can think of, perhaps
with different words from time to time, and that does nothing more than
refer back to your own 'just following orders' posts you make over and
over and over again.

Let me tell you something, you're a big part of the reason I "don't like
cops" as you put it. Actually, what it is, is I don't like drones. I like
thinking individuals. I dislike people who don't think. I don't like the
drone that does customer service for say, the cable company. But the
person working at the cable company isn't that big of deal. But cops
'just following orders' is a big deal.

You've shown me that cops are nothing more than drones doing what
government tells them to do, a government with a basic disregard for the
constitution and a mentality that whatever those on high say is right
and just. The insight you give is like that of the 'just following
orders' defense. I know that government cannot run amuck if the police
and military are full of thinking individuals, and not drones. People who
know right from wrong without the government telling them. But if either
or both are filled with drones, then we're doomed.

Given your posts jaybird, it's quite easy to believe if the government
said it was ok to round people up and put them in internment camps for
political beliefs or just resistance to say a forced vacination, or
whatever, you'd be there and do it with bells on. That's what I don't
like. People who just follow orders. Who don't see the government's
daily criminal actions and then aid it to carry them out. If that's a cop,
then, yes, I don't like them.

On the other hand, if a cop is someone who can think, doesn't lie, and
sticks to principles, doesn't just follow orders, resists doing things
he knows are wrong, then that would be a different story.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>
>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>>>> . ..
>>>>> In article >, jaybird
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Brent P" > wrote in message
>>>>>> . ..
>>>>>>> In article >, jaybird
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the government, the police were more transparent, then maybe
>>>>>>>>> you'd
>>>>>>>>> have something. By dumbing up, it only makes me believe they did
>>>>>>>>> something they shouldn't have.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They're not silent, they just don't have to give you a phone call
>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>> every arrest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Didn't say they had to. Of course, they should probably respond to
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> news media so people know. Instead they go silent. What would you
>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>> about me if you started questioning me and I just refused to answer?
>>>>>>> Be
>>>>>>> honest now, officer.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd finish my paperwork and let you tell it to the judge.
>>>>>
>>>>> Translation: automatic arrest.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, pretty much. I have enough to arrest you on, I don't really need
>>>> a
>>>> statement unless you want to give one.
>>>
>>> See that's a police state jaybird. Where the people have to be
>>> transparent to the government and the government is secret and powerful.
>>
>> No, that's called probable cause. You have that right under the Miranda
>> act.
>
> Exactly. Not answering a cops questions is reason for suspicion alone.

Suspicion, perhaps. I wouldn't be able to list it as a means for probable
cause for an arrest though.

>
>>> That's a denial. Then again, expecting a cop to understand anything is
>>> like expecting my type writer to understand the words typed on it. Both
>>> are just machines doing what they're told.
>
>> No, it's a statement. Why are you only willing to listen to one side of
>> the
>> story?
>
> Side 1: Detailed story.
> Side 2: 'That didn't happen'
>
> Hmmm....

Sounds good to me; to the point.

>
>>> How about you become a thinking human being for a change instead of a
>>> drone? Sure, they'll let out some traffic collision report or something
>>> equally blah. Anything that might be harmful to them will be denied or
>>> redacted or just outright falsified.
>
>> Nope. Again, read up on the Freedom of Information Act.
>
>
>
> Document on Albert Eistein's participation in a scientific project in the
> 1940s.
>
>
>
> FBI document on Nicola Tesla.
>
> These men were scientists / inventors. They've been dead for decades.
>
> Note the date on the Telsa document, 1943.
>
> The freedom of information act is a farce.

I guess that's all that was supposed to be public.

>
>>> You just don't get it. With cops like you it's a wonder we aren't
>>> already
>>> in a nation where people just disappear for political reasons.
>
>> Dealing with people like you is what makes people like me appear that
>> way.
>> You're throwing all kinds of insults, and always have, and I'm going to
>> defend against them. I know I'm honest in my job and I'm not going to
>> let
>> people like you spread malice just because you don't like cops.
>
> Insults? You don't like being called a drone? Because that's about the
> worst thing I've called you and the only thing I can think of, perhaps
> with different words from time to time, and that does nothing more than
> refer back to your own 'just following orders' posts you make over and
> over and over again.
>
> Let me tell you something, you're a big part of the reason I "don't like
> cops" as you put it. Actually, what it is, is I don't like drones. I like
> thinking individuals. I dislike people who don't think. I don't like the
> drone that does customer service for say, the cable company. But the
> person working at the cable company isn't that big of deal. But cops
> 'just following orders' is a big deal.
>
> You've shown me that cops are nothing more than drones doing what
> government tells them to do, a government with a basic disregard for the
> constitution and a mentality that whatever those on high say is right
> and just. The insight you give is like that of the 'just following
> orders' defense. I know that government cannot run amuck if the police
> and military are full of thinking individuals, and not drones. People who
> know right from wrong without the government telling them. But if either
> or both are filled with drones, then we're doomed.
>
> Given your posts jaybird, it's quite easy to believe if the government
> said it was ok to round people up and put them in internment camps for
> political beliefs or just resistance to say a forced vacination, or
> whatever, you'd be there and do it with bells on. That's what I don't
> like. People who just follow orders. Who don't see the government's
> daily criminal actions and then aid it to carry them out. If that's a cop,
> then, yes, I don't like them.
>
> On the other hand, if a cop is someone who can think, doesn't lie, and
> sticks to principles, doesn't just follow orders, resists doing things
> he knows are wrong, then that would be a different story.

Well good. Out of these last five paragraphs, only the last one has any
merit. I've been a cop for many years now and I can say with confidence
that I've never done anything job related that I knew to be wrong. We do
think for ourselves and we think that we are helping to make people
accountable for their actions and help out those who would be victimized by
others. It's a difference and a purpose that not many people can say is a
result of their profession. Just because you don't agree personally doesn't
change those facts.

--
---
jaybird
---
I am not the cause of your problems.
My actions are the result of your actions.
Your life is not my fault.

"There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of
evil men." - Edmund Burke

In article >, jaybird wrote:
> "Brent P" > wrote in message

>>> No, that's called probable cause. You have that right under the Miranda
>>> act.
>>
>> Exactly. Not answering a cops questions is reason for suspicion alone.
>
> Suspicion, perhaps. I wouldn't be able to list it as a means for probable
> cause for an arrest though.

I'm sure you could think of something if you put your mind to it.

>>> No, it's a statement. Why are you only willing to listen to one side of
>>> the story?

>> Side 1: Detailed story.
>> Side 2: 'That didn't happen'
>>
>> Hmmm....
>
> Sounds good to me; to the point.

There isn't another 'side' because it lacks any kind of detailed story.
It's just a denial.


>>> Nope. Again, read up on the Freedom of Information Act.

>>
>> Document on Albert Eistein's participation in a scientific project in the
>> 1940s.
>>
>> FBI document on Nicola Tesla.
>> These men were scientists / inventors. They've been dead for decades.
>> Note the date on the Telsa document, 1943.
>> The freedom of information act is a farce.

> I guess that's all that was supposed to be public.

That's government ruling _over_ the people, not the government by the people
for the people.


> Out of these last five paragraphs, only the lastone has any
> merit. I've been a cop for many years now and I can say with confidence
> that I've never done anything job related that I knew to be wrong.

Of course, you define right and wrong the way the government tells you.
You've made that clear many times. You fail my test because you allow the
government to define it for you. (on that point you've been clear, that
your view of right and wrong is what government tells you the law is) In
doing so, there essentially isn't a sense of right and wrong. If the
government wants you to do something wrong, it just tells you it's
right. The history of man consists of great evils being carried out by
men who were told by their governments those actions were right.

> We do think for ourselves

Your posts don't give that impression.

> and we think that we are helping to make people accountable for their
> actions

I'd love to be able to hold cops accountable for theirs.

> and help out those who would be victimized by others.

Rarely. A person has to protect himself in this nation.

> It's a difference and a purpose that not many people can say is a
> result of their profession. Just because you don't agree personally
> doesn't change those facts.

I don't know how bad things have to get before you wake up and realize
what's going on. Driving is just an illustration of a much greater problem.
The subservision of your profession is key to the success of ending this
late 18th century experiment in liberty. The next is turning people against
each other and not having them understand what liberty is. To finishing
changing the minset such that obeying is a greater virtue than free
thought.

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 08:21:34 GMT, "jaybird" > wrote:

>>>> Didn't say they had to. Of course, they should probably respond to the
>>>> news media so people know. Instead they go silent. What would you think
>>>> about me if you started questioning me and I just refused to answer? Be
>>>> honest now, officer.
>>
>>> I'd finish my paperwork and let you tell it to the judge.
>>
>> Translation: automatic arrest.
>
>Yeah, pretty much. I have enough to arrest you on, I don't really need a
>statement unless you want to give one.

Don't you mean, "*IF* I have enough to arrest you on"?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"