Horrible First Encounter Open Carrying.

[Fallschirjmäger]

By their words, ye shall know them.

CAP, "I’m still waiting for someone to tell me to leave the park. If I refuse to leave it could be criminal trespassing, so…"
Ofc. Rodney Dantzler, "We’d rather take you to jail than…"
CAP, "You’d rather take me to jail? Officer Dantzler? Why is that? Have I committed an offense against the state?"
Ofc. Rodney Dantzler, "That’s the beauty of this job."
CAP, "Have I committed an offense against the state, Officer?"
Ofc. Rodney Dantzler, "That’s the beauty of this job."
CAP, "That you get to abuse that, or what?"
Ofc. Rodney Dantzler, "That you get to take people to jail, that’s what we like to do."
CAP, "Ahh..."
Ofc. Rodney Dantzler, "Why be a cop if you can’t take anybody to jail?"
CAP, "Why… be a cop if you can’t take anybody to jail?"
Ofc. Rodney Dantzler, "That’s right."
CAP, "I don’t know… public service has always appealed to me about the idea."
Ofc. Rodney Dantzler, "Serving the public by taking people to jail."
CAP, "You think a major perk of the job is taking people to jail?"
Ofc. Rodney Dantzler, "Yeah, it’s a major perk."

 

[eye95]

I still haven't met one who doesn't openly admit to it... I get my information from their own mouths...

Then you need to widen you woefully limited experience. Your lack of information is a stunning basis on which you make some significant judgments. Shame on you.

 

[F350]

True. Voluntarily going with them to the secluded area may give them a reason to try to claim that this was a consensual encounter. Inform them that you are going nowhere unless you are in custody. Tell them that you will not resist them if they take you by the arm and pull you where they REQUIRE you to go. Put them on the hook.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

US Supreme court has ruled (no time to find it right now) that if a reasonable person in that situation would have grounds to believe they were not free to go YOU ARE DETAINED the contact IS NOT consensual. They took your side arm and threatened you with force if you did not comply. SCOTUS has further ruled that the words "you are under arrest" need not be said, if your freedom to leave is restricted you are under arrest, you may not be charged but you are under arrest.

Additional action you could take: these "officers" said they knew OC was legal but detained you anyway; they may well have destroyed their immunity because they were not acting in good faith. Go to your closest US Attorney's office or FBI office and file a criminal complaint under 18 USC 241 & 242. May not go anywhere but worth a try.

 

[eye95]

That does not diminish the advice I gave at all.

My advice is to help a person in such a situation in the future establish circumstances that would pass the reasonable-person test. That the carrier himself felt that he was detained is insufficient. That he was detained is also insufficient. He must establish the facts that would make a reasonable person believe that he was not free to go.

So, again, two things: (1) Make the police take overt action. Don't just comply. Let them know by your words that you will not resist, but that they must forcibly require compliance. (2) Record the incident. Make sure that their force is being recorded. "I don't wish to go back to the office. I want to leave. I won't resist, but I ain't going back there voluntarily. Ow, you are hurting my arm. It is possible for you to firmly grab my arm without making it hurt. No, sir, you do not have my permission to remove my gun, however I will not stop you from seizing it. Please be careful with it. I'd rather that you did not remove it from the holster. OK, now that you have, please stop sweeping me and others with it. etc."

Please don't think that because you think that you have been detained that a reasonable person would. Please don't think that if a reasonable person would that you can prove it in court. Do what you can to make it plain on the tape that no one could think anything but you were detained.

 

[1245A Defender]

HeII Yes!!!

That does not diminish the advice I gave at all.

My advice is to help a person in such a situation in the future establish circumstances that would pass the reasonable-person test. That the carrier himself felt that he was detained is insufficient. That he was detained is also insufficient. He must establish the facts that would make a reasonable person believe that he was not free to go.

So, again, two things: (1) Make the police take overt action. Don't just comply. Let them know by your words that you will not resist, but that they must forcibly require compliance. (2) Record the incident. Make sure that their force is being recorded. "I don't wish to go back to the office. I want to leave. I won't resist, but I ain't going back there voluntarily. Ow, you are hurting my arm. It is possible for you to firmly grab my arm without making it hurt. No, sir, you do not have my permission to remove my gun, however I will not stop you from seizing it. Please be careful with it. I'd rather that you did not remove it from the holster. OK, now that you have, please stop sweeping me and others with it. etc."

Please don't think that because you think that you have been detained that a reasonable person would. Please don't think that if a reasonable person would that you can prove it in court. Do what you can to make it plain on the tape that no one could think anything but you were detained.

It is too bad I am on Eye95's ignore list, cause he wont see this...

This post was a very true, direct and forcefull explainion of actions needed to avoid "consentual encounters".
It is very important that the cops be compelled to "physically restrain" your movement in order to prove, detainment!

 

[OC for ME]

"Officer, could I have my recording device back please?"
"What recording device?"
"That one."
"Oh, I'm sorry, you mean this broken recording device? Sure, here ya go, have a nice day Sir."
"You broke my recording device."
"No sir we did not, it was in that condition when we seized it for your safety and our safety."

Do not resist other than verbally and hope that you retain evidence of their unlawful deeds after the encounter.

 

[F350]

That does not diminish the advice I gave at all.

My advice is to help a person in such a situation in the future establish circumstances that would pass the reasonable-person test. That the carrier himself felt that he was detained is insufficient. That he was detained is also insufficient. He must establish the facts that would make a reasonable person believe that he was not free to go.

So, again, two things: (1) Make the police take overt action. Don't just comply. Let them know by your words that you will not resist, but that they must forcibly require compliance. (2) Record the incident. Make sure that their force is being recorded. "I don't wish to go back to the office. I want to leave. I won't resist, but I ain't going back there voluntarily. Ow, you are hurting my arm. It is possible for you to firmly grab my arm without making it hurt. No, sir, you do not have my permission to remove my gun, however I will not stop you from seizing it. Please be careful with it. I'd rather that you did not remove it from the holster. OK, now that you have, please stop sweeping me and others with it. etc."

Please don't think that because you think that you have been detained that a reasonable person would. Please don't think that if a reasonable person would that you can prove it in court. Do what you can to make it plain on the tape that no one could think anything but you were detained.

Good advice for the FUTURE my reference was to the encounter that was in thePAST if any action is to be sought.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Good advice for the FUTURE my reference was to the encounter that was in thePAST if any action is to be sought.

Some people are ecstatic or at the very least satisfied to get an "Sorry", from cops.

I don't understand this, this does nothing to change their behavior. If a child learns all he needs to do is say sorry to his parents and anyone his wrongful behavior disturbs, it is a rare child who will change their behavior. There needs to be consequences for their behavior, both professionally and personally.

 

[Kirbinator]

Didn't occur to me until today.... the 'troublemaker' in Auburn may be a Constable.

 

[FTG-05]

Didn't occur to me until today.... the 'troublemaker' in Auburn may be a Constable.

I could very easily see Constable Bob acting as the OP describes. :lol:

 

[MKEgal]

I issued a mental raspberry at the officers.

LOL!

Sure, there are plenty of officers that enter because they were treated poorly when younger and want revenge or just want to have "power" over people, but that is not the case for ALL officers.

When someone says "all" or "never", it's rarely so. Those are clues to look more closely at their claim.
I know someone who started as a police officer, became police chief, and is now a federal agent.
One time I told him that I thought most officers are motivated by wanting to make the world a better place.
He shook his head & said it had been his experience that about half the officers he knew/knows were bullied in school & never got over it.
I'm surprised he'd estimate it so high, but he certainly has more experience than I do.

In my city's PD, most officers I haven't had experience with. I know one person who happens to be employed as an officer whom I like & believe I can trust & one who I believe has always been honest with me. The other officers I have had experience with, it's usually not been good.
(Not universally bad - there have been some professionals who perform their jobs well & don't cause me harm.)

 

[SFCRetired]

I'll second what MKEgal said. I've known a lot of cops, both good and bad. The bad ones get very aggressive when you question them about almost anything. The good ones pretty well echo what her friend told her. Only difference is that their estimates of the number who were bullied in school and never got over it were much higher; somewhere in the neighborhood of 75% to 80%.

 

[OC for ME]

Good cops "echoing" is not the same as "fixing" the image that their LEA may have if it is a "bad" image. If the image is "good" then they should work doubly hard to maintain that image. There are very few "good" cops. The vast majority of cops are clearly not "bad."

 

[eye95]

It could well be that the large majority are "good." We encounter the "bad" more because they actively seek us out. I'm sure there are a few ugly ones too.

It is similar to the phenomenon whereby cops think almost everyone they meet is a thug, just because they interact disproportionately with thugs.

The way to stay out of these traps and to avoid making assumptions is to treat everyone (including officers) as individuals. Be wary. Be prepared. But be nice until you find out you need to be otherwise.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>