TR> DB> Not in Federal Court... you know them; the guys you don't want
TR> DB> messing around in your "righteous" business?
TR> I don't follow you on this one. Are you saying that you wouldn't
TR> go to jail, that your vehicle wouldn't be fixed, or the vehicle
TR> theft charges wouldn't be dropped?
Someone refusing to allow their car to be commandeered might very 
likey be jailed by the locals; if damaged I don't doubt the 
responsible agency would probably repair it at lowest possible bid. 
Due to your job, I think it would be very difficult for you to 
understand this is not a communist state... my/our property does not 
belong to the state and if you were to arrest me and in actuality 
steal my car... I'd bring federal charges against you. You and your 
laws MAY THINK you have a right, but you don't. Believe me, if the 
above scenario were to happen me and many like me would take the case 
all the way up to the Supreme Court, were it necessary. I'm certain a 
local agency would drop theft charges against itself; I'm also certain 
a federal court would be willing to hear the mess.
You do realize this attitude of "compliance" is regarded by many to be 
an assualt upon their person... the "State" is ever intruding into our 
lives and the backlash will be nasty unless the powers that be are 
smart enough to back-off, and the time to do so is long past.
Just a fact... you may not want to hear it... you may not want to 
believe it... but its true.
TR> I'm also not aware of any legitimate motor vehicle theft charge
TR> you could file unless the reason for commandeering the vehicle was
TR> without merit. The police could not commandeer your vehicle for
TR> going to get coffee.  If there were reasonable grounds for the
TR> commandeering,  A motor vehicle theft charge would not be an
TR> option.
I think a higher court would disagree... hope I never need to test the 
theory.
DB
---
 * RM 1.31 3089 * If this were a real emergency, you'd've been trampled.
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------