Rich B
Regular Member
I haven't seen anyone do so.
I wouldn't stand on head in the middle of the street...
What is the relevance?
Why did you cite the Aloi case as if it went the opposite way or had relevance?
Last edited:
-
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.
-
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.
Open Carry Terry Stops Legal or not?
- Thread starter darkk
- Start date
I haven't seen anyone do so.
I wouldn't stand on head in the middle of the street...
What is the relevance?
Why did you cite the Aloi case as if it went the opposite way or had relevance?
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
That's quite a remarkable leap you've made there. Care to back it up with a reference or citation?
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Oh, I think most understand he's more giving his sour opinion of how the law is enforced rather than what the law is.
Just subtract for hyperbole.
Rich B
Regular Member
It isn't only a drastic leap. It is completely untrue. People think they are experts on the topic when they have not even studied the cases that are ongoing at this very moment.
CGS website lists a litany of cases where the charge is brought and later found to be appropriate or inappropriate based on various attendant facts.
If I see that a trial court upholds a charge, that's enough to give me pause...even if they get reversed later...the State will always argue ALL of the attendant facts (which of course will then have to be found by the court/jury)...which will result in a charge and "let the courts sort it out."
By telling people they can simply refuse to identify it's opening a can of worms that doesn't need to be opened. If someone is stopped for OC, they should keep it about OC and ONLY OC.
After Sandy Hook, how do you think a trial court would react to a person's failure to produce the LTCPR?
Correct...it's like driving and right of way. When driving, a lot of the time you can end up "dead right."
If the charges are being brought by police officers...the defense costs begin to add up.
Thankfully, the 5th is recognized and everybody knows a refusal to play ball (after ID) is the least likely to get you charged. That's the kind of ironclad advice that will drastically limit the chances that you will be arrested then and there. Yes, there is the minor inconvenience of ID, but there isn't much benefit to giving an officer one more charge to attempt to build PC for.
The worst read of Aloi is that it stands on its particular facts. Considering the multitude of potential attendant facts/circumstances...and a demonstrated past willingness of officers to charge for refusal...and recent directives to look for this charge (in the 2A encounter context)...refusal just doesn't sound like it's all that beneficial to a citizen.
Last edited:
Rich B
Regular Member
Well that is how the judicial system works... Are you surprised?
Well if you are afraid of doing things that are legal because you might end up in court only to have your charges dismissed or acquitted, then you should probably stay at home with the sheets over your head. I have news for you: It happens every day and has little to do with firearms or whether or not the person was good or smart or 'asking for it'.
Well that is your opinion. And you know what they say about opinions.
Unfortunately, your opinion has nothing to do with reality or with rights or even legality. If you don't like open carry, don't do it. If you like to give your permit information out to people who ask for it, feel free. Stop trying to tell everyone else what they should or shouldn't do.
We don't know. None of the cases have made it past a motion to dismiss.
Please spend some time doing some research before arguing further. You are just making noise now.
How much does a motion to dismiss cost?
I am advocating a position that reduces the probability that a motion to dismiss will be necessary in the first place...you are admitting that there are real/immediate costs to refusing to ID.
Until I am convinced that every cop on the beat is up on the law, I would be VERY careful picking that particular hill to make your stand.
Last edited:
Rich B
Regular Member
See, the fact that you say that shows me that you don't know me, anything about me, anything about what I post here or what Connecticut Carry says or does. That is unfortunate and sad, but it becomes a problem when you keep pretending the opposite.
Please show me where I have ever tried to assert that it costs nothing or that you cannot be arrested, charged or prosecuted for asserting your rights. I have a few things to cite for you when do. If you do.
Then don't. Again, stop telling everyone else what to do or not to do. Your opinions and fears have nothing to do with reality or what anyone else should or shouldn't do.
If everyone here and in the state thought like you do, we would still be carrying concealed tugging at our shirts worrying that we would be arrested for accidental exposure.
Timeout, exactly what am I "pretending" about you or CT Carry??????
Your eagerness to "get personal" in here is unmatched...seen it from day one.
Why are we even discussing YOU, ME or any other ENTITY?
I appreciate your clarification on Aloi, but that doesn't change the basic fact (which you've admitted) that people get charged for refusal and that police officers are trained to seek PC due to a refusal...which is as recent as this year. Defense costs being "REAL"...they have to be weighed in the citizen's calculus. I'm sorry if I expect police officers and judges to make mistakes of law ALL THE TIME. Tell us they don't and I will be slightly more reassured.
You've still not stated what the benefit of refusal is...what's the rationale?
I'm not trying to be hostile to you or anyone else in here, I AM trying to learn more about this topic. I don't have a personal feeling as to you or any other posters in here.
Rich B
Regular Member
Because you make comments like this:
The implication is that I have been denying or hiding this at all. Which is pretty much the exact opposite of everything I have ever said. Don't make it personal by making implications and putting words in my mouth and then pretend there is some sort of overwhelming drama. You own your words, as do I. When you make statements about what I have or have not said, it is very important for those things to be corrected when they are wrong.
Your version of 'facts' make no sense. Every case you can point to so far has shown the defendant triumphing. The title of this thread is "Open Carry Terry Stops Legal or not?". Clearly they are not. That is what other people are trying to make clear to the OP. You are off in left field arguing tactics and opinions.
Please cite where I told anyone to refuse. You keep making these logical leaps which is why I have refrained from bothering to argue with you in the past. I am about to go back to that policy if you cannot debate correctly.
No, you are trying to evangelize your opinion. If you were trying to learn, you wouldn't be repeating nonsense that has nothing at all to do with the topic of the thread.
I will also refresh your memory on what I said as my first reply in this thread.
Rich B said:
So why are you arguing at me and continuing to evangelize your worries and fears? Why do you continue to pretend that I have taken a position that people should refuse to ID or that there will be no consequences if they do?
Last edited:
I haven't implied ANYTHING ABOUT YOU.
If you and I disagree on a given point (one should provide/not provide ID)
AND you agree with the fundamental basis of my opinion (you MAY be mistakenly charged for refusing and it WILL DEFINITELY cost you if that happens).
WHILE suggesting that my opinion (one should therefore provide ID, because even a wrongful arrest which YOU ADMIT HAPPENS is expensive) is baseless...your suggestion is internally inconsistent. there's a common sense basis for providing ID in this particular context...despite the on-paper absence of a legal basis in one particular factual circumstance. we already know that this Circuit is not favorable to 2A folks and we know that trial courts get this particular point wrong from time to time...but by the time a trial court is deciding the issue, the horse is out of the barn and the citizen is already thousands of dollars into their defense.
That's the only disagreement we've got going here.
For all practical purposes, the safest bet is to provide ID so that failure to provide ID does not become a charge in and of itself. Why give an officer another legal test to fail if he's already failed the first one in stopping you to begin with???? if we're already dealing with an officer who does not know the law (and has an incentive to get it wrong) why hand him the rope to hang you? terminate the encounter, go home and write his supervisor...or take other action to ensure they properly train their officers. don't just say "none of this will stand up in court!"
Funny, I posted about US v. Black not long ago. We are not in the 4th.
If you and I disagree on a given point (one should provide/not provide ID)
AND you agree with the fundamental basis of my opinion (you MAY be mistakenly charged for refusing and it WILL DEFINITELY cost you if that happens).
WHILE suggesting that my opinion (one should therefore provide ID, because even a wrongful arrest which YOU ADMIT HAPPENS is expensive) is baseless...your suggestion is internally inconsistent. there's a common sense basis for providing ID in this particular context...despite the on-paper absence of a legal basis in one particular factual circumstance. we already know that this Circuit is not favorable to 2A folks and we know that trial courts get this particular point wrong from time to time...but by the time a trial court is deciding the issue, the horse is out of the barn and the citizen is already thousands of dollars into their defense.
That's the only disagreement we've got going here.
For all practical purposes, the safest bet is to provide ID so that failure to provide ID does not become a charge in and of itself. Why give an officer another legal test to fail if he's already failed the first one in stopping you to begin with???? if we're already dealing with an officer who does not know the law (and has an incentive to get it wrong) why hand him the rope to hang you? terminate the encounter, go home and write his supervisor...or take other action to ensure they properly train their officers. don't just say "none of this will stand up in court!"
Funny, I posted about US v. Black not long ago. We are not in the 4th.
Last edited:
Rich B
Regular Member
Yes you have. And you do it again here:
What evidence do you have about what my stance is? You cannot debate on what might stance might be.
[quite]WHILE suggesting that my opinion (one should therefore provide ID, because even a wrongful arrest which YOU ADMIT HAPPENS is expensive) is baseless...[/quote]
It is. Not everyone is poor, stupid, or a coward etc. Some people have the money to fight. Some people have the ability to defend themselves adequately. Some people are willing to put everything on the table on principle. You are making baseless assertions. Because something might cost you money or time, you assert that people should not do it. You are asserting your personal opinion and line in the sand as what everyone should do and what I should tell people to do. And that is really quite detestable.
And you ignore all the recent cases that have been thrown out before trial indicating that the courts have learned or are learning.
I wonder why you continue to ignore these basic facts.
I know that you cannot show me where anyone has said this, and that you would not even if you were asked to. It is another baseless assertion about what I have said.
Another completely random statement. I posted about goat cheese not long ago. We are not in Kansas.
I think I am done with this debate since you continue to make wild non sequiturs, attack strawmen and you refuse to acknowledge the basic events and facts that people are trying to tell you. Hell, you won't even acknowledge the words written in this very forum and to whom they are properly attributed to.
We get it. You like the state. You think they should be given the benefit of the doubt when their power is flexed. That is fine for you.
Not everyone feels this way. Not everyone wants to live their life on their knees. Other people have made the choice to not be subservient to the state and to not lay down their rights anytime they are confronted with hassle or cost. Draw your line where you like. Leave the rest alone about where they draw their line.
Last edited:
If I state that it's my opinion that one can end up with an obstruction charge (rightly or wrongly) in CT for failing to identify oneself, which is a historically true statement...and you tell me your "eyes are rolling" and that you've got two dismissals to back it up (which suggests that I am right about being charged)...it would seem to me that you are suggesting that my opinion is invalid and not well-counseled while at the same time validating it. Your "eyes rolling" doesn't suggest agreement.
I've asked you about what the upside is about standing firm on no ID...annnnnd...nothing yet. I'm just as finished with the discussion, I don't think it's possible to be any clearer about what the disconnect is here.
I've asked you about what the upside is about standing firm on no ID...annnnnd...nothing yet. I'm just as finished with the discussion, I don't think it's possible to be any clearer about what the disconnect is here.
Last edited:
Difdi
Regular Member
The key phrase here being "in the performance of such peace officer's, special policeman's motor vehicle inspector's or firefighter's duties."
If a police officer sticks a gun in my face and demands all the money in the till, refusing to give it to him is not obstruction because his duties do not include armed robbery. That's an extreme case, but it's still apt. A police officer operates under certain restrictions, such as the need for probable cause and the requirement to obey the laws of the city that employs them, the state that city is in, and the nation. If the law says the officer can only demand that you identify yourself under specific circumstances, and you are stopped absent those circumstances, it cannot be obstruction to refuse to answer. Because acting in a way that is against the law CANNOT be part of that police officer's duties.
CT Barfly,
Please read these federal court cases (all but one is from SCOTUS):
Kolender v. Lawson Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983), and
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004),
Synopsis from Hiibel v. Sixth, US Supreme Court, 2004...wikipedia: Kolender was cited in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), as an example of a “stop and identify” statute the Court had voided on vagueness grounds. In Hiibel, the Court held that a Nevada law[SUP][6][/SUP] requiring persons detained upon reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime to identify themselves to a peace officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures or the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self incrimination. Unlike California Penal Code §647(e) as construed in Solomon, the Nevada statute was apparently interpreted by the Nevada Supreme Court as requiring only that persons detained state their names.
Please Read:
US. v. Ubilles: The court noted that the situation was no different if police were notified "that Ubilles possessed a wallet..." The court compared a wallet to a legally carried gun!
Please Read:
In US v. King, the 10th Circuit ruled that a firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and they ruled "permitting such detentions would render the Fourth Amendment functionally meaningless."
Please Read:
Duran v. Douglas (SCOTUS) is another good case. This case confirms Terry v. Ohio. RAS is needed to detain.
Arizona v. Hicks (SCOTUS) stated that serial numbers of guns may be taken if in plain view and run through a data base after the detention, unless RAS exists for further investigation.
Please understand that it does not matter what CT does regarding Stop and Frisk, Stop and ID, or using OC as RAS for detention, the federal courts, namely SCOTUS, fully occupy this portion of our Juris Prudence. If detained under the theory of RAS, give your name and date of birth, only.
In Kalifornia we don't have a stop and ID law; therefore, we only give our identity when we are arrested, not detained. LEO will use your identity to harass and further investigate you. Don't give your identity to them unless you are detained or arrested.
MarkM
Last edited:
CT Barfly,
If you still are not convinced, please listen to a law professor and a detective lecturing on why you never speak with police.
Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1p3K3sC1Ec
markm
If you still are not convinced, please listen to a law professor and a detective lecturing on why you never speak with police.
Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1p3K3sC1Ec
markm
This video gets constantly trotted out, but it certainly hasn't convinced me. I've seen WAY too many incidents that contradict the claims made. I've seen TONS of people talk themselves out of arrest, out of charges etc. I've seen potential suspects turn into victims and then the alleged victim gets Arrested based on what the suspect said, etc.
It's not based in the real world. I've debunked it before, and I get tired of doing so, and I'll just say that it's AN opinion. People are free to make up their own mind. For example, I can think of dozens of DV's where the person talking ot us is why they DID NOT go to jail. I can think of one detention of a TRIAL lawyer who upon providing a statement of self defense to me, he got released w/o booking and the prosecutor nolle pros'd. And he WAS an attorney. But he knew better, when the rubber hit the road. There are many cases where you should not talk to police, but it is very situation dependant and not a bright line rule
I'll also say, regarding the title of this thread... that in any state where OC is LEGAL, then of course open carry terry stops are oxymoronic. I guess some states specifically allow officers to check the loaded status of a OC'd gun, like california, but don' quote me on that, that's just what I've heard
Last edited:
Hello Paleo,
I believe you are giving the "you are generalizing" argument. The DVs walked because you did not have substantiated proof that the person in custody, or under detainment, committed the crime. I can talk with you for weeks about a supposed crime, and if I don't make a mistake, you will not have a case unless you find other evidence that points the finger of blame at me.
Why are you afraid of talking with a witness or a suspect with his/her lawyer present? Do you have trouble developing cases without the suspect accidently incriminating himself?
I am now wondering about your capabilities as a prosecutor or LEO.
I have dealt with the legal system myself--not as defendant in a criminal case. The system is rigged toward LEO and bureaucrats.
Also, my brother is a lawyer. He agrees, never speak with a LEO or prosecutor without a competant attorney present, even if you are only a witness. My brother has practiced before the California Supreme Court and the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals, with a perfect win record.
In our system, LEO and the prosecuting attorney are supposed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty. LEO is not supposed to coerce, lie, and cheat people into jail.
Thanks for you opinion.
markm
Last edited:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Bwahahahahahahahaaa!!!
Mr. PALO is more expert on the 5A than both a detective, and a law professor and former criminal defense attorney!
Wow! With that level of expertise, what is he doing earning a cop's salary? He could be earning so much more!
Wow! We are so blessed to have such expertise here on our little ol' forum!
ETA: I just remembered. PALO is also more expert than the justices of the US Supreme Court who wrote in Ohio vs Reiner:
One of the Fifth Amendment's basic functions is to protect innocent men who might otherwise be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances. Truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker's own mouth.
By the way, readers, that quote is in the very video Mr. Expert PALO, claims to have debunked. The same video where, when the detective arrives to the podium after the law professor, the first thing the detective says is, "And, everything he said was true. And, it was right. And, it was correct." Triple validation.
Last edited: