4th LEO encounter!

[nukechaser]

imported post

grumpycoconut wrote:

bigtoe416 wrote:

virginiatuck wrote:

Maybe his point of it all is that there's nothing wrong with having handguns, loaded magazines, and rifles. And there's nothing wrong with being a gentleman and openly carrying on a polite conversation with some law enforcement officers.

I think part II will be posted after Sunday, June 21, 2009 at 4:00 PM (PT), when the Piru, CA Appleseed Shoot is over.

I'd gladly be a gentleman to Cato and CrumpyCoconut, two of the police officers on the california board. I'd be more hesitant being a gentleman when dealing with police officers I personally know. I'd be extremely hesitant being a gentleman when dealing with police officers I don't know.

I definitely have respect for a state and its law enforcement officers if one can be open and honest about open carrying without having to worry about arrest. I don't think California is there just yet though.

Thanks Toe!

Just by way of clarification and full disclosure I am not a police now. I were a police once, just not now. As for that whole gentlemanly conduct thing, my take is that being gentlemanly and polite and civil and such is even more important with folks you don't know. It sets a tone for the contact (polite begets polite), it really points out how lousy they are being if they are being lousy, it gives you a stronger position to operate from if you do have to beef and most importantly of all it makes it all the sweeter when you beagle boogie your way out of the station after they realize that you were right and they were not. As a former police I can tell you that cordiality even during (especially during) the most nasty of encounters is a right powerful thing. The whisper forces the screamer to listen.

So how about recording the police when they talk to you. Go for it. It ain't illegal therefore it is legal. The smart ones are recording you. There is no expectation of privacy when talking to a police. There is no way that this can be a legal two way mirror. If they can record, you can too. If they object they do it out of ignorance at bestor at worst,out of the knowledge or fear that they are operating either wrong or with incomplete information.

That junk being said, BE POLITE DAMN IT!!!!! It don't cost you nothin and might buy you the world. Attitude is almost always paid back with attitude.

Now i can go back and read the rest of the thread.

See? That's why grumpycoconut is one of my/our favorite (former) po-po.

 

[JoeSparky]

imported post

grumpycoconut wrote:

Demnogis,

I am figuratively jumping up and down with joy reading how they dusted you off and sent you on your way!!!!!

That is one powerful bit of learnin someone did that night. And it wasn't just the guy who wasw wrong but also everyone who works with him. he will be telling this story again and again (albeit sheepishly) for quite some time. Chalk this one up in the win column!!!!

One other option that HAS NOT BEEN SUGGESTED is....

Name the law enforcement agency in a law suit.... I still suggest this due to the fact that the officer involved DOES seem contrite. His employer however has failed in the responsibility that they have in properly training them. And a possible witness you can call would be the officer involved to testify that the employer failed to provide adequate training....

I don't know if it is possible to go this route but...
it is a thought!

 

[nick1]

imported post

I must've been mistaken, I thought we WERE talking about suing the agency. Well, that, and the nazi Germany.

 

[gravedigger]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

It's up to demnogis of course, but this may be a time to let it slide.

The officer didn't try to back out at all. He fully admitted his wrongdoing, and apologized.

That, and fifty cents will get you a cup of coffee.

The officer and the department want this to go away quietly. I am not "demnogis," but I can surely tell you that I would make this a VERY public issue and do everything in my power to make the department's life a living Hell. It is not about vengeance. It is about making SURE that it goes beyond the one or two officers that were there that night, and reaches the entire department and in fact, the entire STATE. The LEOs need to KNOW the laws concerning legal open carry, and keeping situations like this quiet for some perceived benefit to the officer or the department, or to avoid some feigned embarassment is completely unacceptable!

The cop told you in no uncertain terms that he knows the gun laws better than you do. It is imperative that you make sure every cop in the state understands that they DON'T know the law better just because they are wearing a badge.

 

[gravedigger]

imported post

SteveO wrote:

rpyne wrote:

marshaul wrote:

It's up to demnogis of course, but this may be a time to let it slide.

The officer didn't try to back out at all. He fully admitted his wrongdoing, and apologized.

I disagree. This is most definitely NOT a time to let it slide. The ONLY way the police in Komifornia, or anywhere else, are every going to get the message is by seeing one of their own lose every penny he has or ever hopes to have, or better yet ends up in prison, for violating the rights of a citizen.

Admitting they were wrong does not negate or excuse the wrongdoing any more than it would for any of us if we were to inadvertently violate the law. If demnogis had "made a mistake" and had a loaded magazine even touching his sidearm, you can bet that he would be sitting in a cell right now no matter how much he admitted his wrongdoing or apologized.

This was not merely an illegal prolonged detention, it was a full fledged false arrest. Nail them to the wall.

I totally disagree! I am not sure which is the better way to go (UOC or CCW). However lawsuits only paint us as money grabbers looking for a quick buck. What I read is at least 3 LEOs getting some continuing education and then with any luck transferring this to their fellow LEOs.

If I sued them, I would offer the ENTIRE award to a local charity and make darned sure that the public was AWARE of the fact that I didn't keep a penny for myself. It is not about us being "money grubbers" or greed. It is about the principle.

 

[gravedigger]

imported post

I don't think he should sue, the guys e-mailing people and he had a nice conversation afterwords, what kindof message would that send the next time they stop an OCer? "He's going to sue anyway"...

Gosh, that's a laugh. Regardless of WHY you made that illegal lane change or whatever, whether you thought you were in the right or not, "He's going to write the ticket anyway."

Why should WE have to tolerate their indifference when they are completely apathetic toward us?

SUE THEM!!! SUE THEM HARD!!!

 

[marshaul]

imported post

C'mon guys, we CA UOCers have yet to sue for numerous violations, many of which were worse than this. Do you really think we're going to start now?

Might as well focus our efforts on something that really gets people riled up. I just don't see us motivated. We're all talk here in this subforum, when it comes to lawsuits.

 

[suntzu]

imported post

SteveO wrote:

rpyne wrote:

marshaul wrote:

It's up to demnogis of course, but this may be a time to let it slide.

The officer didn't try to back out at all. He fully admitted his wrongdoing, and apologized.

I disagree. This is most definitely NOT a time to let it slide. The ONLY way the police in Komifornia, or anywhere else, are every going to get the message is by seeing one of their own lose every penny he has or ever hopes to have, or better yet ends up in prison, for violating the rights of a citizen.

Admitting they were wrong does not negate or excuse the wrongdoing any more than it would for any of us if we were to inadvertently violate the law. If demnogis had "made a mistake" and had a loaded magazine even touching his sidearm, you can bet that he would be sitting in a cell right now no matter how much he admitted his wrongdoing or apologized.

This was not merely an illegal prolonged detention, it was a full fledged false arrest. Nail them to the wall.

I totally disagree! I am not sure which is the better way to go (UOC or CCW). However lawsuits only paint us as money grabbers looking for a quick buck. What I read is at least 3 LEOs getting some continuing education and then with any luck transferring this to their fellow LEOs.

And if they would actually learn the laws they are supposed to enforce, instead of trying to make them up as they go along and instead of walking around THINKING they know the law when they really don't...there would be no need of lawsuits now would there?

they get in line and start treating gun owners with respect and decency instead of looking at all of us like we are criminals--and the lawsuits will stop.

until then--i say sue away.

 

[suntzu]

imported post

gravedigger wrote:

SteveO wrote:

rpyne wrote:

marshaul wrote:

It's up to demnogis of course, but this may be a time to let it slide.

The officer didn't try to back out at all. He fully admitted his wrongdoing, and apologized.

I disagree. This is most definitely NOT a time to let it slide. The ONLY way the police in Komifornia, or anywhere else, are every going to get the message is by seeing one of their own lose every penny he has or ever hopes to have, or better yet ends up in prison, for violating the rights of a citizen.

Admitting they were wrong does not negate or excuse the wrongdoing any more than it would for any of us if we were to inadvertently violate the law. If demnogis had "made a mistake" and had a loaded magazine even touching his sidearm, you can bet that he would be sitting in a cell right now no matter how much he admitted his wrongdoing or apologized.

This was not merely an illegal prolonged detention, it was a full fledged false arrest. Nail them to the wall.

I totally disagree! I am not sure which is the better way to go (UOC or CCW). However lawsuits only paint us as money grabbers looking for a quick buck. What I read is at least 3 LEOs getting some continuing education and then with any luck transferring this to their fellow LEOs.

If I sued them, I would offer the ENTIRE award to a local charity and make darned sure that the public was AWARE of the fact that I didn't keep a penny for myself. It is not about us being "money grubbers" or greed. It is about the principle.

I wouldn't...while it is about principle--I would take their money and I would use it however I saw fit....and it isn't about being a money grubber--but it is about making a statement that this type of activity shall not pass unchallenged--and if that means retiring at the expense of law enforcement--then so be it--maybe if they lost enough money they would quit this kind of garbage.

what would be better still is to see the police who do this not only fired, but have their POST certification revoked for at least 5 years....let them see what it is like to not be on the other side for a change--I dare say none of them would like it very much...

sue them---sue them for everything they have....

 

[stuckinchico]

imported post

As for the poll I am released on my own recognizance

 

[nick1]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

C'mon guys, we CA UOCers have yet to sue for numerous violations, many of which were worse than this. Do you really think we're going to start now?

Might as well focus our efforts on something that really gets people riled up. I just don't see us motivated. We're all talk here in this subforum, when it comes to lawsuits.

Well, I don't exactly have any standing... I am, however, willing to donate the money towards it. I did this before, as did many others here that I know from Calguns. Any takers?

 

[cato]

imported post

An attorney might get his fees and the OP might get $1.00 for a 1983 over this. He just doesn't have any tangible damages other then vindicating the 4th A (a noble goal in and of itself).

The OP is not going to be getting "rich" and I don't think that is anyone'smotivation.

Demnogis seems to have a realistic and rational view of this event. I would encourage him to take the ride along (even unarmed) and pursue a friendly relationship with those officers who are willing to discuss the issues involved. Seem like that has already begun.


photo of Open Carrier at aSeatle, Wash."tea party"protest:

 

[rpyne]

imported post

cato wrote:

An attorney might get his fees and the OP might get $1.00 for a 1983 over this. He just doesn't have any tangible damages other then vindicating the 4th A (a noble goal in and of itself).

The OP is not going to be getting "rich" and I don't think that is anyone'smotivation.

Demnogis seems to have a realistic and rational view of this event. I would encourage him to take the ride along (even unarmed) and pursue a friendly relationship with those officers who are willing to discuss the issues involved. Seem like that has already begun.

Yes, let it slide, then get down on all fours and kiss the backside every time someone with perceived authority violates your rights. How do you think things got to this point? It was by people just letting it slide every time government decided to encroach on their rights.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

cato wrote:

An attorney might get his fees and the OP might get $1.00 for a 1983 over this. He just doesn't have any tangible damages other then vindicating the 4th A (a noble goal in and of itself).

Um, what? In a 1983 action, there are no "tangible" interests at issue. A civil rights case concerns itself, obviously enough, with civil rights. One can't exactly commit conversion of a civil right, you know?

Taking a ride with the cop is pretty stupid. I'd do it if the cop appeared alongside you in an OC rally in a different city from his, carrying and wearing no indicia of his employer.

 

[pullnshoot25]

imported post

Look, I am just as riled up as anyone about going after these cops for blatantly and willingly violating multiple Constitutional rights. HOWEVER, it is oftentimes prudent to educate first and then place them on the proverbial pike if and when another rights violation occurs. This is a learning situation for all involved, moreso for the police officers, many of whom have been indoctrinated into the "nanny state" state of mind.

This viewpoint, is tediously contrasted to with the idea and knowledge that the 12031 check is a "big birdie" to the 4th Amendment and while unacceptable to those that endure it, we are lacking the standing to fully challenge it just yet. In the meantime, it may be quite prudent to assert what 1st and 4th Amendment rights we have (e.g. seizing wallet, running serial numbers, confiscating voice recorders, etc) in the court system, if for any other reason than to

Demnogis, I feel that their reaction to finding out that you were in the legal right the entire time and the fact that they knew they messed up the whole way is going to go a LOONG way in rectifying the situation. In fact, Sam and I were just about crapping ourselves with shock (and laughter!) when I read to him the second half of your post this morning over an omelette.

I think that I and a few other people that I know to be of greater legal persuasion would love to hear this story in person at the next SD OC meet!

 

[smoking357]

imported post

pullnshoot25 wrote:

Look, I am just as riled up as anyone about going after these cops for blatantly and willingly violating multiple Constitutional rights. HOWEVER, it is oftentimes prudent to educate first and then place them on the proverbial pike if and when another rights violation occurs. This is a learning situation for all involved, moreso for the police officers, many of whom have been indoctrinated into the "nanny state" state of mind.

Sue this department, and send a blast fax to all other departments, letting them use it as a "learning situation."

These cops act like they know "the law," when they confine their activities to a very thin sliver of the law, and then, they don't even know that. When cops shifted their mission from "keeping the peace" to "law enforcement," Liberty and we became enemies of the state.

 

[Phssthpok]

imported post

pullnshoot25 wrote:

Look, I am just as riled up as anyone about going after these cops for blatantly and willingly violating multiple Constitutional rights. HOWEVER, it is oftentimes prudent to educate first and then place them on the proverbial pike if and when another rights violation occurs. This is a learning situation for all involved, moreso for the police officers, many of whom have been indoctrinated into the "nanny state" state of mind.

The question then begs to be asked:

HOW MANY MORE VIOLATIONS BEFORE THE PIKE IS BROUGHT IN TO PLAY?

If not this time, when? This is not the first of these violations to be reported in this state's forum. For this particular agency perhaps, but not for this state. The agency involved should be given both barrels and (as much as a shame as it may be) so should the perpetrating officer(s). Nobody wants to see an otherwise (presumably) innocent man suffer consequences for an innocent mistake, but why should this officer get a pass that you would not JUST because he's an officer?

As I said before, YOU would still go down for a simple misunderstanding of the law, .....there should be no difference for those who perpetrated these crimes against you (and make no mistake, their actions were criminal).

I say sue 'em...sue 'em HARD.

 

[stuckinchico]

imported post

pullnshoot25 wrote:

Look, I am just as riled up as anyone about going after these cops for blatantly and willingly violating multiple Constitutional rights. HOWEVER, it is oftentimes prudent to educate first and then place them on the proverbial pike if and when another rights violation occurs. This is a learning situation for all involved, moreso for the police officers, many of whom have been indoctrinated into the "nanny state" state of mind.

This viewpoint, is tediously contrasted to with the idea and knowledge that the 12031 check is a "big birdie" to the 4th Amendment and while unacceptable to those that endure it, we are lacking the standing to fully challenge it just yet. In the meantime, it may be quite prudent to assert what 1st and 4th Amendment rights we have (e.g. seizing wallet, running serial numbers, confiscating voice recorders, etc) in the court system, if for any other reason than to

Demnogis, I feel that their reaction to finding out that you were in the legal right the entire time and the fact that they knew they messed up the whole way is going to go a LOONG way in rectifying the situation. In fact, Sam and I were just about crapping ourselves with shock (and laughter!) when I read to him the second half of your post this morning over an omelette.

I think that I and a few other people that I know to be of greater legal persuasion would love to hear this story in person at the next SD OC meet!

Its not the E checks that I am concerned about.... Its the way they do it.... Degrading and humiliating in public in front of peers made to get on ur knees and down to ur stomach with over 6 weapons pointed at you THAT i have issue with wtf ever happened to askin a person to keep his hands off a weapon during the encounter and asking to check if its unloaded BEING CIVIL not treating law abiding citizens like dirt bags ThATs gotta stop[

 

[marshaul]

imported post

(e) checks are unconstitutional, unless serious precedent is to be overturned.

We just need to prove that.

 

[stuckinchico]

imported post

true that i will settle in the mean time while we research that for human decency and respect... baby steps must crawl before walk and then eventually run