4th LEO encounter!

[Frosty_In_CA]

imported post

1. "The police seemed respectful enough in their procedure, however wrong they were. If it were me, Iwould look at a free consultation with a lawyer."
- Forget a lawyer, do it your self. You can file the paperwork just as easily as a lawyer would, and there are several benefits. 1. No/low cost 2. No disclosure, because you have the right not to self incriminate, you don't have to share any of your info with them, but they would have to share it with you. (ie, His record, training, home life, favorite color, and so on)"

2. "I find it asinine for all of you to spout off that he should spend his hard earned money into something he may not win."
- He should be able to win this easily! There are several SCOUS decictions (I can find the citings if that'd make you guys feel better) that say if an officer acts outside the "Law" he is acting on his own authority.

SIMPLE--- (On the witness stand).
Q: Officer was I placed under arrest?
A: Yes, but only briefly?
Q: Did I break any law?
A: No, but we were investigating a crime!
Q: What crime was that?
A: Carrying a weapon
Q: Is that a crime?
A: No, but I didn't know that at the time.
Well your honor that is gross negligence.
I rest my case.

3. Its like if he had his mother shot by a gang and all of you telling him, go take a gun and teach that gang of 100 members a lesson!!' .... he COULD EASILY GET KILLED! Though all of you wouldn't do that yourselves.

Now if you offered to helpagainst the gang, that is a different story. In this case, the 'Goliath' is the cops and court.
- It's a gang alright, the "Blue light gang" (a term taken from a youtuber), And if you take on this gang, what does he lose? IF he'd like some counsil (notice I didn't legal advice) I woul dbe more than happy to point him in the direction of the stuff that I have been learning about.

I say let's fight the paper tiger, the "Blue light gang".
A friend of mine is always telling me, "Boy, you'd better watch out, one of these days your going to need a cop, then where will you be?" My answer is always the same....."What do I NEED a policeman for?"

Some of you have said "Let bygones be bygones, he apologized didn't he?" (I don't mean for this to be antagonistic) And I'm a big believer in "turn the other cheek", Should a man lose his Job/career over a stupid mistake? Maybe not, but he should be punished in some way. Do you think his department will punish him? Will the city/state? the andwer is a decided NO.

Just for a giggle let's play the "put the shoe on the other foot" game. Now let's play out another sceneario - This same officer is sitting around the cooler and one of the female officers walks by and he says, WOW she has a nice A**. What happens now? Demotion? suspention? sensativity training? all of the above? WHY? because they (other departments city/state workers) have gotten their BUTTS SUED OFF!

Not convinced?

Let's do one more.

Same cop is walking down the street and see's a bunch of black kids playing with a fire hydrant. He yells out "Hey you bunch of dumb A** N*****'s get away from there!" All while a News crew is watching? What happens now? suspended? Fired? pilleried in the press? possibly?

Why do they get away with picking on a white, heterosexual, christian, man?

Because they can. :X

I'm sure that officer would NEVER sexually harrass a woman (and expect to get away with it) for dread fear of losing his job, his supperiors would make DARN sure he know's where the line is. I'm also sure that he has attended many "culteral sensativity" lectures. But I'm think I'm pretty sure he has NEVER been told. "You swore an oath to defend the constitution, and you better DARN well toe that line!"

In fact the opposite is more than true....they are TAUGHT to get around your "rights" :banghead:

Thomas Jefferson once said:
- You only have those rights you are willing to fight for!

Nuff said?

I say, file the paperwork,

 

[CA_Libertarian]

imported post

MichaelWDean wrote:

Not something to sue over. A busted nose could be something to sue over. Hurt feelings ain't.

Not hurt feelings; trampled rights.

Also: people suing over hurt feelings is one of the things that is flushing this country down the tubes.

IMO, what's flushing this country down the tubes is the attitude of leniency on government thugs. We need to have zero tolerance for tyranny. Instead, our culture puts LE up on a pedestal and scoffs at anybody that dares think they can be held to mortal standards.

 

[CA_Libertarian]

imported post

pullnshoot25 wrote:

Several points need clarifying. First, the cops enjoy qualified immunity. That means they don't need to know the law and therefore are incentivized to not know it. By not knowing the law, they can enforce laws that aren't laws, giving themselves more power.

I'm fairly certain "qualified immunity" means they aren't individually responsible when performing their duties in a lawful way. That's a shield from civil liability, and it doesn't apply when they're breaking the law.

Any time an officer operates outside his authority, he IS civilly and criminally liable. (That doesn't mean justice will be served, as in a few cases we've seen cops literally get away with murder.)

 

[smoking357]

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

IMO, what's flushing this country down the tubes is the attitude of leniency on government thugs. We need to have zero tolerance for tyranny. Instead, our culture puts LE up on a pedestal and scoffs at anybody that dares think they can be held to mortal standards.

***APPLAUSE***

Down South, they positively worship the thugs.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

I'm fairly certain "qualified immunity" means they aren't individually responsible when performing their duties in a lawful way. That's a shield from civil liability, and it doesn't apply when they're breaking the law.

Not really. Qualified Immunity ("QA") presumes that a person engaing in a certain act has freedom to act in furtherance of the act without fear of suit. The immunity is "qualified," because a person can exceed it.

For example, a person has QA to report a crime to police, but if a person reports that the suspect has committed crimes that the person knows did not occur, QA is overcome, and the person is subject to suit.

Similarly, a cop has QA to arrest people he has probable cause to believe committed a crimes, but the QA is overcome if the officer was negligent, or worse, in verifying that the act was a crime. One who relies on QA must have bona fide belief in the propriety of one's own actions.

You're more closely describing the doctrine of respondeat superior, or "let the master answer." RS also does not ordinarily apply when a law is broken, though it can still be invoked during illegal action if, say, an employee is exceeding all posted speed limits on the way to the hospital to bring his boss a needed organ transplant and clips another car on the way there.

 

[MichaelWDean]

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

MichaelWDean wrote:

Also: people suing over hurt feelings is one of the things that is flushing this country down the tubes.

IMO, what's flushing this country down the tubes is the attitude of leniency on government thugs....

It's both. There's a balance.

MWD

 

[stuckinchico]

imported post

"LOSERS make excuses, WINNERS make it happen"
Some famous person who i can recall their name

 

[Ian]

imported post

demnogis, I had somewhat of a problem with the way you cited the law. You kept saying, "I think....as far as I know..." etc.

KNOW the law, don't make it seem like you are unsure. You say, "This is the law," not, "I think this is legal."

 

[demnogis]

imported post

All, thank you for the advice you have given.

I must side with the opinions of cato, grumpycoconut and pullnshoot25. I think many of the responses are too quick to suggest lawyering-up and taking this department to the cleaners. This was their first encounter with someone who was lawfully open-carrying in that city. Those who requested where this was I will send you a PM with the location.

I don't believe this was a scenario of "bad cop was bad". I am a person who believes in second chances. As this was their first encounter I believe this is the prime opportunity to educate instead of litigate. This was in no way like one of my previous LEO encounters where my girlfriend and I were drawn down on via felony stop, interrogated and detained for over 2 hours. (That is the incident I am still trying to, and having trouble with pursuing litigation). They knew about OC and the laws pertaining to it well ahead of time, yet insisted and arrogantly continued to flaunt their force.

If, however, they decide to not learn from this first encounter, action should be taken. I believe for our cause to make further advancement in the assertion of our rights (and to not be trampled on) is to establish a positive relationship with good cops and departments.

 

[Frosty_In_CA]

imported post

You should at bear minimum log a formal complaint. TRUST me when I say, a paper trail is absolutely necessary for any future action. (I learned the hard way)

Silence is condonance.

Frosty

 

[MichaelWDean]

imported post

Frosty_In_CA wrote:

You should at bear minimum log a formal complaint. TRUST me when I say, a paper trail is absolutely necessary for any future action. (I learned the hard way)

THAT makes a lot of sense.

MWD

 

[Phssthpok]

imported post

demnogis wrote:

If, however, they decide to not learn from this first encounter, action should be taken. I believe for our cause to make further advancement in the assertion of our rights (and to not be trampled on) is to establish a positive relationship with good cops and departments.

Fair enough. Might I suggest then that you go for the middle ground.

File a suit to get it in the works, then withdraw the action WITHOUT PREJUDICE and inform them that if you come to the knowledge of any similar incidents of the department and/or individuals depriving citizens of their rights in such a manner, that you will re-instate the suit(s) and pursue them to the fullest extent possible.

This gives them their second chance, yet retains your right to seek reparations should you become so inclined at a later time.

 

[KS_to_CA]

imported post

demnogis wrote:

" Officer 1 gets out his note pad and starts writing down information. "Here's my number, my badge number and my name. Here's also the number for dispatch and the station. If you have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to call. I'll file a report on this and send an e-mail out to everyone to let them know about carrying firearms and the laws."

Officer 2 gave me one of his cards and told me to call him to do a ride-along to maybe get a feel for the other side of things.

This sounds like a very positive encounter over-all. maybe just a case of individual officers who really didn't know the law and thought they did. I am still sorry you have to be the crucible to make this happen but I guess fire has a way of changing things for the better.

Many thanks in behalf of all all the brothers and sisters, citizens all, that would encounter these officers while carrying from now on, I am sure it will be in a different light after this incidence.

 

[KS_to_CA]

imported post

This is also why I carry a three ring binder in my car, not that all officers who see it will realize their mistake, but maybe some will, and some would probably won't be as hostile.

 

[Frosty_In_CA]

imported post

Phssthpok wrote:

demnogis wrote:

If, however, they decide to not learn from this first encounter, action should be taken. I believe for our cause to make further advancement in the assertion of our rights (and to not be trampled on) is to establish a positive relationship with good cops and departments.

Fair enough. Might I suggest then that you go for the middle ground.

File a suit to get it in the works, then withdraw the action WITHOUT PREJUDICE and inform them that if you come to the knowledge of any similar incidents of the department and/or individuals depriving citizens of their rights in such a manner, that you will re-instate the suit(s) and pursue them to the fullest extent possible.

This gives them their second chance, yet retains your right to seek reparations should you become so inclined at a later time.

+1 :celebrate

 

[KylaGWolf]

imported post

All I can say is if you do nothing else file the complaint. When they ask you what you want done state that you want the department to offer training to its officers in what is legal and not when it pertains to OC. If the department refuses then I would consider taking legal actions not so much for cash money but to force then to force them to do the training. I would also go to the press if they don't want to cooperate.

I know from experience the one department you are talking about and maybe after this last encounter they had with a group of OCers they may finally do something. I know you know about it after talking to PNS.

 

[CA_Libertarian]

imported post

Phssthpok wrote:

demnogis wrote:

If, however, they decide to not learn from this first encounter, action should be taken. I believe for our cause to make further advancement in the assertion of our rights (and to not be trampled on) is to establish a positive relationship with good cops and departments.

Fair enough. Might I suggest then that you go for the middle ground.

File a suit to get it in the works, then withdraw the action WITHOUT PREJUDICE and inform them that if you come to the knowledge of any similar incidents of the department and/or individuals depriving citizens of their rights in such a manner, that you will re-instate the suit(s) and pursue them to the fullest extent possible.

This gives them their second chance, yet retains your right to seek reparations should you become so inclined at a later time.

I like this middle ground option. I would let them know your intentions before filing the suit. Tell them it's just a formality, and that you have no desire to proceed unless their actions make you feel it's the only way to effect change. I think this shows them that you are giving them a second chance, but that they have to continue to earn it.

Also, I would file the formal complaint against the officer, but note his apology. Again, I would explain it before filing. In case there are future "mistakes" we need a paper trail. I would also make it clear that all you want is a paper trail, and some additional training.

I think all this can be done in such a manner that it won't hurt anybody's feelings, and will get a lot done.

 

[TatankaGap]

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

Phssthpok wrote:

demnogis wrote:

If, however, they decide to not learn from this first encounter, action should be taken. I believe for our cause to make further advancement in the assertion of our rights (and to not be trampled on) is to establish a positive relationship with good cops and departments.

Fair enough. Might I suggest then that you go for the middle ground.

File a suit to get it in the works, then withdraw the action WITHOUT PREJUDICE and inform them that if you come to the knowledge of any similar incidents of the department and/or individuals depriving citizens of their rights in such a manner, that you will re-instate the suit(s) and pursue them to the fullest extent possible.

This gives them their second chance, yet retains your right to seek reparations should you become so inclined at a later time.

I like this middle ground option. I would let them know your intentions before filing the suit. Tell them it's just a formality, and that you have no desire to proceed unless their actions make you feel it's the only way to effect change. I think this shows them that you are giving them a second chance, but that they have to continue to earn it.

Also, I would file the formal complaint against the officer, but note his apology. Again, I would explain it before filing. In case there are future "mistakes" we need a paper trail. I would also make it clear that all you want is a paper trail, and some additional training.

I think all this can be done in such a manner that it won't hurt anybody's feelings, and will get a lot done.

I would not file any suits unless you are going to follow through - especially in the federal courts where there are sanctions for wasting judicial resources -

A formal complaint is a good idea; create the paper trail; send a detailed letter and look up your statute of limitations - you might have 1, 2 or more years to file suit - maybe there will be more problems, maybe not - either way, you don't have to file a suit right away to preserve your rights -

Perhaps, we on this forum should put together a memo like a 'Uniform Protocol for Open Carry Stops in California" that would state how we want it to go down and send it to all local law enforcement in CA or directly to their associations - force the dialogue to the surface where it can see and feel the light of day - IMHO -

:dude:

PS - and the cops interested in squelching open carry in CA are reading this forum and using anything posted here against the people - not sure if that's paid investigatory work or hobby time :what:

 

[ghostrider]

imported post

demnogis wrote:

All, thank you for the advice you have given.

I must side with the opinions of cato, grumpycoconut and pullnshoot25. I think many of the responses are too quick to suggest lawyering-up and taking this department to the cleaners. This was their first encounter with someone who was lawfully open-carrying in that city. Those who requested where this was I will send you a PM with the location.

I don't believe this was a scenario of "bad cop was bad". I am a person who believes in second chances. As this was their first encounter I believe this is the prime opportunity to educate instead of litigate. This was in no way like one of my previous LEO encounters where my girlfriend and I were drawn down on via felony stop, interrogated and detained for over 2 hours. (That is the incident I am still trying to, and having trouble with pursuing litigation). They knew about OC and the laws pertaining to it well ahead of time, yet insisted and arrogantly continued to flaunt their force.

If, however, they decide to not learn from this first encounter, action should be taken. I believe for our cause to make further advancement in the assertion of our rights (and to not be trampled on) is to establish a positive relationship with good cops and departments.

I don't have time for a lengthy response right now, but here's the short.

You were unlawfully arrested. (hey read you your rights and placed you in handcuffs. They even admitted that they were wrong in doing so. )

I wholeheartedly agree with Frosty_in_CA in that you should file a complaint. In all actuality, you do have solid grounds for a law suite in federal court for civil rights violations (Grand Haven, MI is being sued for $600,000) however, the officers were pretty "stand-up" about being wrong when they realized their error. Because of their forthright gesture, one would initially think that returning that kind gesture would be appropriate. However, the incident should have never happened in the first place. For generations now, officers have been employing the tactics of, "get away with whatever methods you can until you get caught". The simple truth is that they arrested you for doing something that is perfectly legal, when they should have first checked to make sure of it's legality before even stopping you, let alone arresting you. We as a society have become so programed to accept such encroachments upon liberty that we don't even acknowledge them for what they are any more.

First thing you should do is file a FOIA on all documents, electronic transmissions, pictures, video, and audio.

Then talk to a lawyer. He may not want you to file that complaint as it might hurt a potential case.

Then, if the lawyer okays it, file the complaint.

I know the officers came across as trying to be amicable, but in truth they had dug a hole so deep that there wasn't much else they could do, and what they did was the best way out of it for them. IOW, the were just trying to cover their backside.

Think of it this way:
They were all ready to take you to jail, and prosecute you with the knowledge (albeit mistaken) that doing so would not only restrict your current freedom, but also hurt you financially, and remove any future rights you may have had as a citizen. They didn't care one bit about your freedom, or how it would affect your life. They just wanted to hurt you in the best way they knew how. When they realized that they had no legal leg to stand on, they did the best act of backpedaling they could. The sooner our public servants learn to fear harassing citizens over the exercise of rights, the better off this country will be.

 

[suntzu]

imported post

ghostrider wrote:

demnogis wrote:

All, thank you for the advice you have given.

I must side with the opinions of cato, grumpycoconut and pullnshoot25. I think many of the responses are too quick to suggest lawyering-up and taking this department to the cleaners. This was their first encounter with someone who was lawfully open-carrying in that city. Those who requested where this was I will send you a PM with the location.

I don't believe this was a scenario of "bad cop was bad". I am a person who believes in second chances. As this was their first encounter I believe this is the prime opportunity to educate instead of litigate. This was in no way like one of my previous LEO encounters where my girlfriend and I were drawn down on via felony stop, interrogated and detained for over 2 hours. (That is the incident I am still trying to, and having trouble with pursuing litigation). They knew about OC and the laws pertaining to it well ahead of time, yet insisted and arrogantly continued to flaunt their force.

If, however, they decide to not learn from this first encounter, action should be taken. I believe for our cause to make further advancement in the assertion of our rights (and to not be trampled on) is to establish a positive relationship with good cops and departments.

I don't have time for a lengthy response right now, but here's the short.

You were unlawfully arrested. (hey read you your rights and placed you in handcuffs. They even admitted that they were wrong in doing so. )

I wholeheartedly agree with Frosty_in_CA in that you should file a complaint. In all actuality, you do have solid grounds for a law suite in federal court for civil rights violations (Grand Haven, MI is being sued for $600,000) however, the officers were pretty "stand-up" about being wrong when they realized their error. Because of their forthright gesture, one would initially think that returning that kind gesture would be appropriate. However, the incident should have never happened in the first place. For generations now, officers have been employing the tactics of, "get away with whatever methods you can until you get caught". The simple truth is that they arrested you for doing something that is perfectly legal, when they should have first checked to make sure of it's legality before even stopping you, let alone arresting you. We as a society have become so programed to accept such encroachments upon liberty that we don't even acknowledge them for what they are any more.

First thing you should do is file a FOIA on all documents, electronic transmissions, pictures, video, and audio.

Then talk to a lawyer. He may not want you to file that complaint as it might hurt a potential case.

Then, if the lawyer okays it, file the complaint.

I know the officers came across as trying to be amicable, but in truth they had dug a hole so deep that there wasn't much else they could do, and what they did was the best way out of it for them. IOW, the were just trying to cover their backside.

Think of it this way:
They were all ready to take you to jail, and prosecute you with the knowledge (albeit mistaken) that doing so would not only restrict your current freedom, but also hurt you financially, and remove any future rights you may have had as a citizen. They didn't care one bit about your freedom, or how it would affect your life. They just wanted to hurt you in the best way they knew how. When they realized that they had no legal leg to stand on, they did the best act of backpedaling they could. The sooner our public servants learn to fear harassing citizens over the exercise of rights, the better off this country will be.

extremely well said.

It is long past time that the people of this country begins to hold the government and its' agents financially and criminally responsible for their misconduct. The doctrine of qualified immunity should be revoked as well.

the primary officers involved in harassing the OP should ALL lose their jobs, and have their POST certifications revoked for at least 5 years. Maybe the word will go out to RESPECT our rights when officers begin losing their jobs right and left and millions are lost in civil judgments....