• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

4th LEO encounter!

I am...

  • - Out on Bail.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • - Released of my own recognizance.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    4

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

Decoligny wrote:
Qualified Immunity is when an LEO "thinks" something is illegal, and because he was acting on an assumption that there was actually a law against something, he is IMMUNE from any legal repercussions of his actions because he was acting in "good faith".

The cops should be held to the same standard as anyone else, i.e. "ignorance of the law is no excuse".
I thought Qualified Immunity was when the officers made a "mistake of fact" - and had to prove they were mistaken. (E.g. they arrest someone matching a suspect's description, but find out it was the wrong person.)

I can't imagine this immunity would extend to made up laws... Under that logic, couldn't a LEO arrest someone for being Hispanic, and then simply claim they though there was a law against it? They could literally make up anything and claim they were mistaken.
 

ghostrider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
imported post

suntzu wrote:
marshaul wrote:
suntzu wrote:
The doctrine of qualified immunity should be revoked as well.
Can you say that again?
I said the Doctrine of Qualified Immunity should be revoked as well.....:D

the government should not be able to hide behind it.

As others have said--law enforcement should not be exempt from criminal and civil penalties just because they "think" something is wrong.....ignorance of the law is no excuse--at least it isn't for us...
Give it time. danbus, and MEM have both gained settlements, as well as a military man in Georgia (I believe).

There are also various lawsuits pending around the country, and this trend is only going to gain momentum until LE starts to respect peoples rights.
 

KS_to_CA

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
443
Location
National City, CA, ,
imported post

gravedigger wrote:
KS_to_CA wrote:
I have a three ring binder in my car with all pertinent documents and sheriffs' memos in clear plastic document protector for clear viewing if an officer decides to believe he knows more than anybody about gun law.
If you live in California, I will pay you to duplicate that binder and send it to me! Just give me your price in a PM and I'll give you the mailing address, and arrange for payment! Make sure you are well compensated for your time!
Save your money, all the memo and a copy of the OCDP brochureare on this forum. Also, visit calguns.net. There is no guarantee that every LEO would realize the error they are making, but some might, and those who don't might not be as hostile. Also, on the front is the US Constitutions 2A. Then the CA article stating the US constitution is the highest law in the land. The heller and nordyke are also in this forum.
 

KS_to_CA

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
443
Location
National City, CA, ,
imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:
KS_to_CA wrote:
Can you cite a code or case that says recording a conversation with uniformed officers performing public duties is legal?
As Mike pointed out, it's not up to us to prove what is legal, but to determine that which is prohibited/illegal.

Here's the only thing I could find in CA penal code (my emphasis bolded/underlined):

632. (a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment...

...(c) The term "confidential communication" includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.
Logically, any communication taking place in public is likely to be overheard. Now, it's possible this side lot was secluded enough. Assuming no other people were present (i.e. another person being investigated in the lot, but not party to the communication in question), the officer may be able to claim he reasonably thought the communication was confidential. (Don't have a citation, so I won't argue about privacy rights of officers while performing public duties. I'll simply assume they have a right to privacy while on duty.) However, by notifying the officer the recording was taking place, there is no way the officer could claim he reasonably believed the communication was not being recorded.
Thanks a bunch
 

KS_to_CA

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
443
Location
National City, CA, ,
imported post

I see the point on both sides and if it was me, and reading all these posts, i will not know where to go. And I am not pushing one way or the other.

But I will play a devil's advocate for a while. Sort of a, plan B. Suppose a lawsuit was filed and the media got involved, and there was a big news, and suppose the cop was found guilty and made to pay $100K, and we sing victory till we can't croak no more. Next thing we know, the PD Chiefs and Sherriffs are asking the legislature to repeal the open carry law because of officer safety, or due to ecomonic reason, whatever, and since this is Kalifornia, it is not unthinkable for some aspiring politician to sponsor a bill to do just that.

What happens then? Can we block the tide legally?
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

This is why it important to educate, inform and show people that there are responsible gun owners now. Otherwise I forsee not only california but much of U.S. loosing their rights.
 

suntzu

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
1,230
Location
The south land
imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:
This is why it important to educate, inform and show people that there are responsible gun owners now. Otherwise I forsee not only california but much of U.S. loosing their rights.

we're in the process of losing our Constitutionally protected rights now....all they need is the excuse to finish off our rights....give them time and if they can't find one, they will manufacture one.
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

KS_to_CA wrote:
I see the point on both sides and if it was me, and reading all these posts, i will not know where to go. And I am not pushing one way or the other.

But I will play a devil's advocate for a while. Sort of a, plan B. Suppose a lawsuit was filed and the media got involved, and there was a big news, and suppose the cop was found guilty and made to pay $100K, and we sing victory till we can't croak no more. Next thing we know, the PD Chiefs and Sherriffs are asking the legislature to repeal the open carry law because of officer safety, or due to ecomonic reason, whatever, and since this is Kalifornia, it is not unthinkable for some aspiring politician to sponsor a bill to do just that.

What happens then? Can we block the tide legally?
What do you mean by "repeal the open carry law"?

Did you intend to say, "pass additional legislation to elimenate open carry"?

Remember, laws generally don't permit things, they prohibit things. Open carry is legal because it is not prohibited by law... yet.

Either way, you bring up a common concern. If all the LE lobby groups banded together, we'd most likely have more restrictive laws on our hands.

The bad news is that this would make it much worse for us for a few years. The good news is that it would make it MUCH easier to get the laws overturned on 2A grounds.
 

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
imported post

I still think shooting ranges, gun shops and others need to simply stop selling or servicing law enforcement until they get on board.
 

crazyinca

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
15
Location
, ,
imported post

This is my first post on this forum. I have been reading things here as well as some other forums. So much info and so few hours. I have just finished reading the 8 pages on this thread and let me just start by saying that my mind is

[align=center]exploding!

[/align][align=left]I will not be able to express my thoughts as eloquently as so many of you have, so you will just need to bear with me. I would like to say that the OP and everybody that is a member of the Open Carry Community has guts. You are to be commended, but that is not why my mind is exploding. When I read the story of what happened and the outcome, my blood was boiling. When I read some of the responses, that is when the exploding happened. There are so many things that I would like to comment on. I hope I can do so without bouncing all over the place.[/align][align=left]
[/align][align=left]1. The cop with the mouth is a punk and needs to be taught a lesson. If that means a complaint, law suit, training, etc., it is the choice of demnogis. This is not a cop bashing post so don't get your panties is a bunch. Some of the things that officer said were very disturbing. He thinks that he knows the law and is above it. Those are the type of people that should not be wearing a badge. Some examples.[/align]a) "I told the officer that I also had my voice recorder on me, that it was recording. I was not able to see his badge or nametag at this time. He interrupted and told me that it was illegal for me to be recording our interaction because as an individual he has civil rights too[sup](1)[/sup]. I started to explain that since he is working in his official capacity as a public servant it is not illegal to record our interaction in public. He insisted that it was illegal."

b) "Officer 1 asks me what I was doing coming into his town carrying guns."

c) "He insisted that he knew firearms laws better than anyone else in his department."

d) "I asked him if I could speak to his seargant. Officer 1 again affirmed that he knows more than his seargant does about firearms laws."

Let's start with

a). He is ignorant of the law about recording and worried about HIS CIVIL RIGHTS while he proceeds to abuse your civil rights.

b) HIS TOWN. Give me a break. How do you defend that attitude? This is where we find out that he is not only ignorant, he's an a-hole.

c) If you ever meet someone that knows or can do anything better than everybody else, WATCH OUT!

d) After he released you in front of the Sgt. I would have asked why you were arrested. If he knew everything better than everyone else INCLUDING the SGT., why not educate the SGT.

Then he has the nerve to say this.

"What this is, is a technicality. You were right and I was wrong. I thought I knew the law but I didn't. I'm very, very sorry that this happened and that we took up so much of your time. We're going to give you all of your things back, dust you off and send you on your way. Hopefully nothing bad will come of this. Again, I apologize, you were correct about the law and I wasn't. I had thought that you couldn't have loaded magazines and a firearm on you." -

The only thing that didn't happen is him asking you to pull you pants down so he could kiss your butt up close and personal.

If you are a LEO, it is your DUTY to know the law. If ignorance of the law won't get us out of a ticket or jail, it shouldn't get you off the hook for your abuse.

Some of you have said that they acted in good faith and no damage, no harm or how about they said sorry when they found out they were wrong(violated your civil rights). SHAME ON YOU! Next time you are speeding and slow down when you see the police and they pull you over, just tell them you are sorry. See if you get a ticket.
Try that one for a firearms violation, let me know how that one goes.

People defend them and say that there are a few bad ones here and there. WRONG! Police departments a starving for officers and are lowering their standards and more than a few bad ones are getting through. My opinion means nothing, so take it for what it's worth. As long as the police have power over us do whatever they see fit until they get caught, we need to hold them to a higher standard. When they abuse that power, there needs to be punishment. If they want to keep there job with the city, move them to parks to mow lawns or maybe DPW to work fixing the sewer pipes.


I have a whole bunch more to say, but I'll end it here. You can stop clapping now.

[align=left]
[/align][align=left]
[/align][align=left]
[/align][align=left]
[/align][align=left]
[/align][align=left]
[/align][align=left]
[/align][align=left]
[/align][align=left]
[/align]
 

crazyinca

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
15
Location
, ,
imported post

NavyLT wrote:
KS_to_CA wrote:
Can you cite a code or case that says recording a conversation with uniformed officers performing public duties is legal?
That's not the way it works in America. Laws make actions illegal. Why would recording a conversation that is occurring in a public place with NO expectation of privacy be illegal?

+1

How about you try this one on for size.

Can you cite a code that says Open Carry is legal in California? How about why aren't you carrying concealed, because the law says you can't. Why do you carry your gun unloaded? Because the law tells you that you can't carry loaded. Why not carry into a Post Office? Because the law says you can't and they are hoping that the postal employees that are about to go postal can read the "No Firearms" sign and will obey the law.

I am not trying to pick on anyone, but some of you are good honest law abiding Citizens. Maybe too good, too honest and too law abiding. I am not suggesting to do otherwise, but do let all that goodness give the police a free pass when they overstep their authority. I grew up respecting the police. When I was in high school, I used to ride along as an Explorer. I even thought about a career in LE. That is when I learned about some of the truly twisted individuals in LE. It's a tough job and one that I wouldn't want to do. I know the job comes with lots of pressures and risks, but if they can't do the job without breaking the law or stepping on peoples rights, find another job. I am the first to say that I wouldn't cut it as a cop, but there are plenty that I have seen that shouldn't be wearing a badge.

Why do we have such things as Miranda, Terry, Heller, People v. Clark. Think about it. Do you think they were founding fathers? They were people who fought the law (police, DA) and set precedent for us, the law abiding ones. Have any of you read those cases? Clark was arrested with meth. Terry was about to do a hold up. Miranda was robber and a rapist. Because of these people, YOU have more rights.


The police officer in this case was obviously bitch-slapped by his SGT. or he wouldn't have apologized to you the way he did. I say sue. If that means he is really suing us, because them is us(confused now), I say so what. The government spends our money like drunken sailors. They hand out fines to punish for not following the rules. They don't care how that hurts you. If they don't follow the rules, they should pay.

The law is for everyone and applies to everyone including the police. If you break it you will pay. The same should hold true for the police.
 

bomber

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
499
Location
, ,
imported post

demnogis wrote:
Thats about it. I hope that you all can provide some more tips or suggestions for my next LEO encounter as well.

Let me say a couple of things. You did a fine job. No one can be expected to every little thing exactly "right" when it comes to LEO encounters.

I hate cops, I openly admit it. BUT! if I were you, I'd settle for the apology and the actions from the Sergeant. They made a mistake but they did their best to make it right. That's progress. And I guarantee you that that cop learned his lesson and will not make that mistake again. Suing may accomplish some things, but it could also make things worse, giving OC'ers the image as lawsuit hungry cop haters. One positive encounter can go a long way towards educating LEO's.
 
Top