Detained in Home Depot

[wrightme]

imported post

nolacopusmc wrote:

wrightme wrote: Much like your inability to fully comprehend law because you only choose to read and post those points which support your law, you will see in my post i stated (I will quote to help you and the other slow ones out)

So, what law do you allege I have some inability to fully comprehend?

Believe it or not (which you probably do not because I am a lying copper) that was an intentional play on words.)

Since you lack the literary comprehensive skill set to deduce, in the above quoted statement, I was making reference to the numerous statements on here by several people that suggest all cops are liars and swindlers. Since you keep making reference to me being some rep of LEO, I figured you already attributed to me such traits and qualities thereof.

Again, feel free at anytime to go back to the Nevada board.

I only attribute attributes to you which you show evidence of actually having (or lacking). I do not jump to conclusions simply because you are LE, but determine your demeanor based upon the words you choose. Over and over you choose words that put others down. Also, over and over you post simple misspellings, poor sentence structure, and attempt to claim it was intentional.

Instead of attempting to communicate by clearly speaking about fact-based points of law, you attempt to deny others a voice with your attempts at ad hominem argument.

It is those acts that generate my perception of you as an LE. It is your demeanor that show you to be poor spokesman for LE in general.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

nolacopusmc wrote:

wrightme wrote:

nolacopusmc wrote:

Believe it or not (which you probably do not because I am a lying copper) that was an intentional play on words.)

Many, like you, or both foul(your logic stinks) and fowl (birdbrained) in their thinking. Good catch though.

FYI, you keep creating a fantastic view of asanine internet know-it alls. You really should run for public office.

Furthermore, the Nevada thread is a few pages back. Why don't you return?

Typical for you. You seem to have some mistaken belief that you are better than the average citizen due to your LE status. Then you call others 'asanine.' (asinine)

That is pure BS. I am not better than you. I never said that.

Partially true. You never said that you are better than I, but then again, I never claimed that you thought that you were better than I. I stated that you feel you are better than the average citizen due to your LE status. That attitude is quite evident in your postings here.

Note: I know that you are not better than me.

 

[nolacopusmc]

imported post

wrightme wrote:

nolacopusmc wrote:

wrightme wrote: Much like your inability to fully comprehend law because you only choose to read and post those points which support your law, you will see in my post i stated (I will quote to help you and the other slow ones out)

So, what law do you allege I have some inability to fully comprehend?

Believe it or not (which you probably do not because I am a lying copper) that was an intentional play on words.)

Since you lack the literary comprehensive skill set to deduce, in the above quoted statement, I was making reference to the numerous statements on here by several people that suggest all cops are liars and swindlers. Since you keep making reference to me being some rep of LEO, I figured you already attributed to me such traits and qualities thereof.

Again, feel free at anytime to go back to the Nevada board.

I only attribute attributes to you which you show evidence of actually having (or lacking). I do not jump to conclusions simply because you are LE, but determine your demeanor based upon the words you choose. Over and over you choose words that put others down. Also, over and over you post simple misspellings, poor sentence structure, and attempt to claim it was intentional.

Instead of attempting to communicate by clearly speaking about fact-based points of law, you attempt to deny others a voice with your attempts at ad hominem argument.

It is those acts that generate my perception of you as an LE. It is your demeanor that show you to be poor spokesman for LE in general.

Sorry it took so long, i had to look ad hominem up. great use of the word BtW.


Your argument is very sound, and I will use the same to conclude you are a complete dumbass.

 

[wrightme]

imported post

nolacopusmc wrote:

wrightme wrote:

nolacopusmc wrote:

wrightme wrote: Much like your inability to fully comprehend law because you only choose to read and post those points which support your law, you will see in my post i stated (I will quote to help you and the other slow ones out)

So, what law do you allege I have some inability to fully comprehend?

Believe it or not (which you probably do not because I am a lying copper) that was an intentional play on words.)

Since you lack the literary comprehensive skill set to deduce, in the above quoted statement, I was making reference to the numerous statements on here by several people that suggest all cops are liars and swindlers. Since you keep making reference to me being some rep of LEO, I figured you already attributed to me such traits and qualities thereof.

Again, feel free at anytime to go back to the Nevada board.

I only attribute attributes to you which you show evidence of actually having (or lacking). I do not jump to conclusions simply because you are LE, but determine your demeanor based upon the words you choose. Over and over you choose words that put others down. Also, over and over you post simple misspellings, poor sentence structure, and attempt to claim it was intentional.

Instead of attempting to communicate by clearly speaking about fact-based points of law, you attempt to deny others a voice with your attempts at ad hominem argument.

It is those acts that generate my perception of you as an LE. It is your demeanor that show you to be poor spokesman for LE in general.

Sorry it took so long, i had to look ad hominem up. great use of the word BtW.


Your argument is very sound, and I will use the same to conclude you are a complete dumbass.

Well, at least you now know the word used to describe your argument style. By the way, that style is not an effective one. In fact, it is an argument style normally used by those without a strong point to make.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Fellas,

Lets focus on the stop itself.

 

[XD-GEM]

imported post

nolacopusmc wrote:

charlie12 wrote:

That girl mighthave been a dispatcher or jail deputy working extra duty and didn't know crapaboutthe law and got over her head.

I guess now she knows.

that is a possibility also.


Was it the Home Depot in Marrero? Op said NOPD, but it was probably JPSO?

Is that correct CaptDan?

Since Dan hasn't answered this (nnote that he works offshore for long stretches) let me say that I noticed that, too; I think you may be correct in thinking it was JPSO. Can NOPD do uniformed extra-duty assignments out of jurisdiction?

 

[charlie12]

imported post

XD-GEM wrote:

nolacopusmc wrote:

charlie12 wrote:

That girl mighthave been a dispatcher or jail deputy working extra duty and didn't know crapaboutthe law and got over her head.

I guess now she knows.

that is a possibility also.


Was it the Home Depot in Marrero? Op said NOPD, but it was probably JPSO?

Is that correct CaptDan?

Since Dan hasn't answered this (nnote that he works offshore for long stretches) let me say that I noticed that, too; I think you may be correct in thinking it was JPSO. Can NOPD do uniformed extra-duty assignments out of jurisdiction?

Just a guess but I would think NOPD would need a JPSO commission to work in JP. Just a guess.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

nolacopusmc wrote:

Citizen wrote:

CaptainDan wrote:

ok here goes,...

Thank you for clearing up the non-consensual nature of the encounter.

SNIP Either she knew OC was legal and harassed you, or, she became unsure during your conversation. In which case, she let a potential violator walk rather than call a magistrate to check the law while holding the violator. Nolacopusmc interjection: Right, becasue that really happens. I have all local magirstrate cellphone numbers on my Iphone. I also have a dumbass app, and as i read this, it is going off telling me you have way too much time on your hands. Go back to reading porn instread of trying to spout legal advice. Wikipedia is the other way.

SNIP Great deduction Sherlock Holmes.

Oh, I don't think I'm that far off base. You do realize I'm looking at the possibilities, not advancing certainties. And the purpose of the possibilities is to give some perspective for evaluating the main statement about deliberate harassment.

As for calling magistrates, I didn't think that one up. Its been reported here more than once as something police do when they are unsure of the law.Are you saying you cannot do like I did one night a fewmonths back when we had aquestionhere on the forum about getting a warrant for a false accusation against an OCer?I just picked up the phone,dialled 411, and asked for the number to the local magistrate. I was able to post the magistrate's answer on this forum during the discussion.

With regard to the possibility that the officer became unsure of the law while talking to the OP, she still illegally detained him. And, it doesn't say a whole lot for the LEO if she let him go without at least trying to find out what the deal was, especially after starting the encounter as a detention.

She can't say she was using discretion and letting a violator "off easy". Those conversations don't start the way this one did, according to what we've seen reported here, anyway.

And, I didn't dream up the idea that the cop knew OC was legal, but decided to bug the OCer anyway. We've seen that reported here several times before, too.

But theseare secondary to the main point, which is that the LEO illegally detained the OP, violating not his 2A rights, but his 4A rights.

 

[derf]

imported post

I don't have a problem with a cop asking me questions.
I don't know if he/she has a good reason to ask or not. I won't know unless he/she tells me.
In public it could be that someone reported an OCer as a person about to rob someone.
In private it could be that the owner has asked the cop to check or deny OCers.
I give the cops the benefit of the doubt.
Beyond that, if I am treated unfairly or wrongly arrested, then I feel my rights have been violated. But, in general, I don't think the asking of questions is a civil rights violation.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

derf wrote:

I don't have a problem with a cop asking me questions.
I don't know if he/she has a good reason to ask or not. I won't know unless he/she tells me.
In public it could be that someone reported an OCer as a person about to rob someone.
In private it could be that the owner has asked the cop to check or deny OCers.
I give the cops the benefit of the doubt.
Beyond that, if I am treated unfairly or wrongly arrested, then I feel my rights have been violated. But, in general, I don't think the asking of questions is a civil rights violation.

As long as the questions are clearly consensual, I would not object to your holding that view.

I'm not sure if you are speaking to the OP incident, or just remarking. Per the OP, this was not a consensual encounter. The US Supreme Court would agree as per US vs Mendenall, that I cited, quoted, and linked above.

For myself, any cop who so much as contacts me investigatorily about my open carried gun is getting a formal complaint. Even if consensual.

Even if consensual, it tells me right off the bat that he considers OC suspicious. This is not acceptable. If he is suspicious, he can always observe me from a distance to see if there is anything else that might actually rise to RAS.

I have seen too many baseless detentions reported here. I have been harassed myself, twice. Too many times I've read where cops went outside their authority violating someone's 4A rights. I've also read or seen too many examples of the Blue Wall of Silence.

Although it is hard to discern it in this thread's encounter, there have been too many reports of 4A violations where it was apparent the reported incident was not the first time the cop had violated someone's 4A rights.

I'm not going to play footsie or sympathy with unprofessional police conduct.

 

[derf]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

derf wrote:

I don't have a problem with a cop asking me questions.
I don't know if he/she has a good reason to ask or not. I won't know unless he/she tells me.
In public it could be that someone reported an OCer as a person about to rob someone.
In private it could be that the owner has asked the cop to check or deny OCers.
I give the cops the benefit of the doubt.
Beyond that, if I am treated unfairly or wrongly arrested, then I feel my rights have been violated. But, in general, I don't think the asking of questions is a civil rights violation.

As long as the questions are clearly consensual, I would not object to your holding that view.

I'm not sure if you are speaking to the OP incident, or just remarking. Per the OP, this was not a consensual encounter. The US Supreme Court would agree as per US vs Mendenall, that I cited, quoted, and linked above.

For myself, any cop who so much as contacts me investigatorily about my open carried gun is getting a formal complaint. Even if consensual.

Even if consensual, it tells me right off the bat that he considers OC suspicious. This is not acceptable. If he is suspicious, he can always observe me from a distance to see if there is anything else that might actually rise to RAS.

I have seen too many baseless detentions reported here. I have been harassed myself, twice. Too many times I've read where cops went outside their authority violating someone's 4A rights. I've also read or seen too many examples of the Blue Wall of Silence.

Although it is hard to discern it here, there have been too many reports of 4A violations where it was apparent the reported incident was not the first time the cop had violated someone's 4A rights.

I'm not going to play footsie or sympathy with unprofessional police conduct.

I see your point and appreciate the rational debate.
I like the idea of sending a complaint. That could be helpful.

 

[nolacopusmc]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

derf wrote:

I don't have a problem with a cop asking me questions.
I don't know if he/she has a good reason to ask or not. I won't know unless he/she tells me.
In public it could be that someone reported an OCer as a person about to rob someone.
In private it could be that the owner has asked the cop to check or deny OCers.
I give the cops the benefit of the doubt.
Beyond that, if I am treated unfairly or wrongly arrested, then I feel my rights have been violated. But, in general, I don't think the asking of questions is a civil rights violation.

As long as the questions are clearly consensual, I would not object to your holding that view.

I'm not sure if you are speaking to the OP incident, or just remarking. Per the OP, this was not a consensual encounter. The US Supreme Court would agree as per US vs Mendenall, that I cited, quoted, and linked above.

For myself, any cop who so much as contacts me investigatorily about my open carried gun is getting a formal complaint. Even if consensual.

Even if consensual, it tells me right off the bat that he considers OC suspicious. This is not acceptable. If he is suspicious, he can always observe me from a distance to see if there is anything else that might actually rise to RAS.

I have seen too many baseless detentions reported here. I have been harassed myself, twice. Too many times I've read where cops went outside their authority violating someone's 4A rights. I've also read or seen too many examples of the Blue Wall of Silence.

Although it is hard to discern it here, there have been too many reports of 4A violations where it was apparent the reported incident was not the first time the cop had violated someone's 4A rights.

I'm not going to play footsie or sympathy with unprofessional police conduct.

Fair enough, but it was my understanding that the OP left when he wanted to, therefore summizing he was always free to leave, thus not even a detainment. had he been restricted from leaqving, then it would have entered the possible realm of a detainment.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

derf wrote:

I don't have a problem with a cop asking me questions.

In private it could be that the owner has asked the cop to check or deny OCers.

But, in general, I don't think the asking of questions is a civil rights violation.

1. I do. Keep your lack of "problems" away from my Liberty.

2. Cops use their governmental power for private hire?

3. I do. A big one. See #1. If they have a reasonably articulatable suspicion for asking me a question, I'll be glad to help them move along and find the bad guy. If they don't...

 

[nolacopusmc]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

derf wrote:

I don't have a problem with a cop asking me questions.

In private it could be that the owner has asked the cop to check or deny OCers.

But, in general, I don't think the asking of questions is a civil rights violation.

1. I do. Keep your lack of "problems" away from my Liberty.

2. Cops use their governmental power for private hire?

3. I do. A big one. See #1. If they have a reasonably articulatable suspicion for asking me a question, I'll be glad to help them move along and find the bad guy. If they don't...

You are not a very friendly person. You basically want no one speaking to you correct? With your lack of personality, i do not see you running into any problems with that.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

nolacopusmc wrote:

SNIP Fair enough, but it was my understanding that the OP left when he wanted to, therefore summizing he was always free to leave, thus not even a detainment. had he been restricted from leaqving, then it would have entered the possible realm of a detainment.

Yes, I understand. He cleared it up in a later post, third from the top ofpage 2.

He did not include enough circumstances in his first post to discern for sure whether a detention occurred.This is why I asked forclarification at the top of page 2.

Anyway, we got it cleared up. That's the main thing.

And hopefully readers who were unfamiliar with Mendenhall have some new understandings of their 4A rights. If I achieved that, I'll call my contribution to the thread a success.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

And hopefully readers who were unfamiliar with Mendenhall have some new understandings of their 4A rights. If I achieved that, I'll call my contribution to the thread a success.

Anytime you stop by is a success.

 

[derf]

imported post

1. I do. Keep your lack of "problems" away from my Liberty.
2. Cops use their governmental power for private hire?
3. I do. A big one. See #1. If they have a reasonably articulatable suspicion for asking me a question, I'll be glad to help them move along and find the bad guy. If they don't...

1. I didn't ask for your warped opinion, I stated my opinion.
2. Uhh, yeah, cops can be hired by businesses as security. I dunno about use of their "governmental power" but they can ask you to leave and respond to crimes.
3. See #1.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

nolacopusmc wrote:

Citizen wrote:

SNIP As long as the questions are clearly consensual, I would not object to your holding that view.

Fair enough, but it was my understanding that the OP left when he wanted to, therefore summizing he was always free to leave,

Thank you for calling my attention to that.

I am not a lawyer, but I am betting the key point is not whether he left when he wanted to--as in got so exasperated well along in the encounter that he finally walked away. I'm betting the key point is:

We conclude that a person has been "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendmentonly if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave. US v Mendenhall(emphasis added)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0446_0544_ZO.html

"A reasonable person" being broader than just theOPer. Also, the OPer could have felt not free to walk away at the inception and early in the incident, leaving only after he was exasperated, which would not have cancelled the initial part of the encounter being a detention. If I recall he says he did not feel free to leave, but using other words to say it, in his clarification near the top of page two.

This next is for all readers, and particularly the OP. It is very unwise to disregard a police officer exhibiting the reported characteristics and just turn your back and walk away. As another has pointed out, you have no way to know with 100% certainty that the LEO does not have legal justification to detain you.

If you guess wrong and start to walk away, you may trigger a physically compelling response from the LEO. Tackled, tasered? Even if you guess right, if the officer thinks he is right, you may trigger that compelling response from the LEO.

Don't thinkfor one second that if his career is on the line, that the LEO might not lie or misrepresent what happened earlier in the encounter in order to give himself RAS to justify the detention preceedingthe compelled response.

This is just one more reason to follow thestandard procedures forinvoking yourrights, one step of which is asking, "Officer, am I free to leave?"

This has the additional benefit of maybe getting the officer to verballyconfirm an illegal detention.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

Citizen wrote:

And hopefully readers who were unfamiliar with Mendenhall have some new understandings of their 4A rights. If I achieved that, I'll call my contribution to the thread a success.

Anytime you stop by is a success.

Wow, thanks. I really appreciate that.

Sometimes I wonder if all my quoting and citing and linking is really helping. Thanks for the confirmation and validation.

 

[derf]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

Citizen wrote:

And hopefully readers who were unfamiliar with Mendenhall have some new understandings of their 4A rights. If I achieved that, I'll call my contribution to the thread a success.

Anytime you stop by is a success.

Wow, thanks. I really appreciate that.

Sometimes I wonder if all my quoting and citing and linking is really helping. Thanks for the confirmation and validation.

No, your posts are very helpful, unlike the plethora of cracksmoking posts that aren't.