Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 94

Thread: Medford Open Carrier Arrested - Speed Trap Warning

  1. #1
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234

    Medford Open Carrier Arrested - Speed Trap Warning

    BREAKING NEWS:

    Yesterday a Medford Open Carrier who is a member here (though not a rabid poster) was arrested today and charged with violation of city ordinance on disorderly conduct. He was protesting the speed enforcement radar/photo van 150 yards or so from his house. Het set up a tripod with video and proceeded to protest the van with a sign (and while open carrying of course). The occupant of the van (apparently he's not a cop) confronted him verbally from inside the van and then apparently called the police.

    Police response was multiple units and they performed a "felony stop" (i.e. weapons were drawn). After cuffing and stuffing him, they apparently started working on what to charge him with and decided on the disorderly charge, apparently with comments that he had impeded traffic or some such.

    He is out on bail and beginning to work the issue. No police report in hand yet and his video, firearm, Oregon CHL and Utah permits are still in police custody "as evidence".
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 07-27-2012 at 12:47 AM.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    BREAKING NEWS:

    Yesterday a Medford Open Carrier who is a member here (though not a rabid poster) was arrested today and charged with violation of city ordinance on disorderly conduct. He was protesting the speed enforcement radar/photo van 150 yards or so from his house. Het set up a tripod with video and proceeded to protest the van with a sign (and while open carrying of course). The occupant of the van (apparently he's not a cop) confronted him verbally from inside the van and then apparently called the police.

    Police response was multiple units and they performed a "felony stop" (i.e. weapons were drawn). After cuffing and stuffing him, they apparently started working on what to charge him with and decided on the disorderly charge, apparently with comments that he had impeded traffic or some such.

    He is out on bail and beginning to work the issue. No police report in hand yet and his video, firearm, Oregon CHL and Utah permits are still in police custody "as evidence".


    Let me guess, Warren ******
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 07-27-2012 at 07:20 AM. Reason: Personal Info

  3. #3
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by 01rednavigator View Post
    let me guess, warren ******
    you would be wrong
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 07-27-2012 at 07:20 AM.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  4. #4
    Regular Member PFC HALE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    earth
    Posts
    492
    would be wise to have a second hidden camera videotaping as im sure the first tape will be "lost" somehow...

    sucks that these cops get power trips. Hope he wins the case.
    HOPE FOR THE BEST, EXPECT THE WORST, PREPARE FOR WAR

  5. #5
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    Good luck to your/our friend with this. Please keep us updated as you can w/o compromising his case - will presume that proper requests have been/will be filed.

    I will refrain from speculating on this from afar and await further details as they may be released.

    ***********************
    Explanation for my "edits" being on these posts: 1st moved the post from another thread, then edited out a surname - please do not post public/personal identifiers w/o that person's permission.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  6. #6
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Grapeshot: Warren's username is his full name, so presumably he's fine with people knowing it online.

    Charged with impeding traffic? If he stayed on the sidewalk that will be a hard case to win. This is Oregon's disorderly text:

    166.025 Disorderly conduct in the second degree. (1) A person commits the crime of disorderly conduct in the second degree if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, the person:
    (a) Engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior;
    (b) Makes unreasonable noise;
    (c) Disturbs any lawful assembly of persons without lawful authority;
    (d) Obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic on a public way;
    (e) Congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse;
    (f) Initiates or circulates a report, knowing it to be false, concerning an alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, catastrophe or other emergency; or
    (g) Creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which the person is not licensed or privileged to do.
    (2) Disorderly conduct in the second degree is a Class B misdemeanor.
    Here is Medford's:

    5.120 Disorderly Conduct

    (1) No person, acting with intent to cause public alarm or a breach of the peace or with reckless disregard for creating a risk thereof, shall:
    (a) Engage in fighting or violent behavior; or
    (b) Obstruct vehicular or pedestrian traffic on a public way; or
    (c) Fail or refuse to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse from a public place; or
    (d) Create a hazard to person or property by any act which the actor is not licensed or privileged to do.
    (2) For purposes of this section, a breach of the peace means a disturbance where there is both a threat of bodily harm or damage to property and the immediate power to carry out the threat, or where there is an unlawful act of violence.
    There must not be enough real crime in Medford if the cops go out of their way to arrest a guy protesting a speed trap and the DA has time to prosecute such a difficult-to-win case.
    Last edited by bigtoe416; 07-27-2012 at 11:06 AM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    My guess is they don't care if he's convicted. The officer's lose nothing if he's not convicted, the officer's lose nothing if the district attorney drops the charges. The officers even get paid to testify if the case goes to court - win or lose.

    I would posit that this is just the latest case of "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride."

  8. #8
    Regular Member Ironbar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Tigard, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    385
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    you would be wrong
    I'm shocked. That sounds just like something he'd do.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Ironbar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Tigard, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    385
    Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what exactly he was protesting against? I mean, was it because the van was so close to his house, or does he just hate photo radar? Either way it seems sort of silly.

  10. #10
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironbar View Post
    Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what exactly he was protesting against? I mean, was it because the van was so close to his house, or does he just hate photo radar? Either way it seems sort of silly.
    He was protesting the use of speed traps (radar/photo van) for generating revenues rather than our servants keeping the peace.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  11. #11
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    He was protesting the use of speed traps (radar/photo van) for generating revenues rather than our servants keeping the peace.
    Protest (1st amend. right) while OCing (1st & 2nd amend rights) - Personally have no quarrel with either point.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  12. #12
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Protest (1st amend. right) while OCing (1st & 2nd amend rights) - Personally have no quarrel with either point.
    Yup, it really doesn't matter what the protest was about. A right is a right regardless of whether anyone else agrees. I think burning the flag should be illegal but it's not. So if you burn a flag and they arrest you, I'll support you as having the "right" under the law to burn that flag even if I don't support the cause you're protesting!
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    State of Jefferson
    Posts
    36
    I was the one protesting. My sign said, "Tax-***** Pig," because as an anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist/libertarian I can't stand seeing these guys sit on the side of the road collecting a paycheck for robbing people of their hard earned fiat currency. It was free-speech target of opportunity because they just happened to be right down the street from my house, and the open carry was incidental; not part of the protest, just what I do all the time. I was carrying a Taurus 608 .357 magnum as I'd just gotten done doing some roofing work for a friend and that's the gun I usually leave in my Jeep while I'm on the roof.

    I'm trying to figure out what to do at this point and will be seeking legal counsel soon, but I'm OK with all of this being public at this point. It's already been fairly publicized on Facebook. I'm a bit swamped with my little brother's wedding this weekend, though, so I won't have much time to deal with it until after the weekend. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the charges never even made it past my court date in a couple weeks as I'm pretty sure the prime motivation of the cops who responded was simply to punish me any way they could. I was mostly on the sidewalk but I did cross the street a couple of times (this was on the corner of Garfield and Jasper) to get in a better position for traffic depending on which way it was coming. I don't see how anything I ever did could be considered impeding traffic, though. I always crossed when cars were still well down the road and none of them were ever even close to slamming on their brakes or even slowing down for me.

    I'll try to let you guys know more details as I can.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by David West View Post
    I was the one protesting. My sign said, "Tax-***** Pig," because as an anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist/libertarian I can't stand seeing these guys sit on the side of the road collecting a paycheck for robbing people of their hard earned fiat currency.
    +100 to you, sir!!! Keep us updated!

  15. #15
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Sorry to hear that David. Any thoughts on filing a deprivation of rights under color of authority lawsuit?

  16. #16
    Regular Member Jay Jacobs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Canton, GA
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by David West View Post
    I was the one protesting. My sign said, "Tax-***** Pig," because as an anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist/libertarian I can't stand seeing these guys sit on the side of the road collecting a paycheck for robbing people of their hard earned fiat currency. It was free-speech target of opportunity because they just happened to be right down the street from my house, and the open carry was incidental; not part of the protest, just what I do all the time. I was carrying a Taurus 608 .357 magnum as I'd just gotten done doing some roofing work for a friend and that's the gun I usually leave in my Jeep while I'm on the roof.

    I'm trying to figure out what to do at this point and will be seeking legal counsel soon, but I'm OK with all of this being public at this point. It's already been fairly publicized on Facebook. I'm a bit swamped with my little brother's wedding this weekend, though, so I won't have much time to deal with it until after the weekend. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the charges never even made it past my court date in a couple weeks as I'm pretty sure the prime motivation of the cops who responded was simply to punish me any way they could. I was mostly on the sidewalk but I did cross the street a couple of times (this was on the corner of Garfield and Jasper) to get in a better position for traffic depending on which way it was coming. I don't see how anything I ever did could be considered impeding traffic, though. I always crossed when cars were still well down the road and none of them were ever even close to slamming on their brakes or even slowing down for me.

    I'll try to let you guys know more details as I can.
    GL with your case Mr. West.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    State of Jefferson
    Posts
    36
    Scratch the part about them having my Utah CHL. Upon talking to the Sheriff's department about my permits and finding out that they didn't have my Utah permit, I looked through my wallet and found it behind a Cold Stone Creamery gift card instead of in the ID slot, so that was just a mistake on my part. They did tell me, though, that if I don't get this dropped within 30 days, I'll have to re-apply and spend $50 to get my Oregon Permit back. So even if I'm innocent, they can steal my money from me.

    Man I hate the government...

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by David West View Post
    Scratch the part about them having my Utah CHL. Upon talking to the Sheriff's department about my permits and finding out that they didn't have my Utah permit, I looked through my wallet and found it behind a Cold Stone Creamery gift card instead of in the ID slot, so that was just a mistake on my part. They did tell me, though, that if I don't get this dropped within 30 days, I'll have to re-apply and spend $50 to get my Oregon Permit back. So even if I'm innocent, they can steal my money from me.

    Man I hate the government...
    They're full of it. IIRC they must send you a certified letter informing you of revocation of license and allow an appeal. (Don't have ORS available on phone)

    Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Protest (1st amend. right) while OCing (1st & 2nd amend rights) - Personally have no quarrel with either point.
    Courts have this viewpoint as well ... its one of those "isolated" incidents .. that happen almost every day.

    He should sue and get some jingle out of it , maybe 5-10K.

  20. #20
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogbait View Post
    They're full of it. IIRC they must send you a certified letter informing you of revocation of license and allow an appeal. (Don't have ORS available on phone)
    Right you are:

    166.293 Denial or revocation of license; review. (1) If the application for the concealed handgun license is denied, the sheriff shall set forth in writing the reasons for the denial. The denial shall be sent to the applicant by certified mail, restricted delivery, within 45 days after the application was made. If no decision is issued within 45 days, the person may seek review under the procedures in subsection (5) of this section.
    (2) Notwithstanding ORS 166.291 (1), and subject to review as provided in subsection (5) of this section, a sheriff may deny a concealed handgun license if the sheriff has reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant has been or is reasonably likely to be a danger to self or others, or to the community at large, as a result of the applicant’s mental or psychological state or as demonstrated by the applicant’s past pattern of behavior involving unlawful violence or threats of unlawful violence.
    (3)(a) Any act or condition that would prevent the issuance of a concealed handgun license is cause for revoking a concealed handgun license.
    (b) A sheriff may revoke a concealed handgun license by serving upon the licensee a notice of revocation. The notice must contain the grounds for the revocation and must be served either personally or by certified mail, restricted delivery. The notice and return of service shall be included in the file of the licensee. The revocation is effective upon the licensee’s receipt of the notice.
    (4) Any peace officer or corrections officer may seize a concealed handgun license and return it to the issuing sheriff if the license is held by a person who has been arrested or cited for a crime that can or would otherwise disqualify the person from being issued a concealed handgun license. The issuing sheriff shall hold the license for 30 days. If the person is not charged with a crime within the 30 days, the sheriff shall return the license unless the sheriff revokes the license as provided in subsection (3) of this section.

    (5) A person denied a concealed handgun license or whose license is revoked or not renewed under ORS 166.291 to 166.295 may petition the circuit court in the petitioner’s county of residence to review the denial, nonrenewal or revocation. The petition must be filed within 30 days after the receipt of the notice of denial or revocation.
    (6) The judgment affirming or overturning the sheriff’s decision shall be based on whether the petitioner meets the criteria that are used for issuance of a concealed handgun license and, if the petitioner was denied a concealed handgun license, whether the sheriff has reasonable grounds for denial under subsection (2) of this section. Whenever the petitioner has been previously sentenced for a crime under ORS 161.610 or for a crime of violence for which the person could have received a sentence of more than 10 years, the court shall grant relief only if the court finds that relief should be granted in the interest of justice.
    (7) Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 9.320, a corporation, the state or any city, county, district or other political subdivision or public corporation in this state, without appearance by attorney, may appear as a party to an action under this section.
    (8) Petitions filed under this section shall be heard and disposed of within 15 judicial days of filing or as soon as practicable thereafter.
    (9) Filing fees for actions shall be as for any civil action filed in the court. If the petitioner prevails, the amount of the filing fee shall be paid by the respondent to the petitioner and may be incorporated into the court order.
    (10) Initial appeals of petitions shall be heard de novo.
    (11) Any party to a judgment under this section may appeal to the Court of Appeals in the same manner as for any other civil action.
    (12) If the governmental entity files an appeal under this section and does not prevail, it shall be ordered to pay the attorney fees for the prevailing party.
    Regarding section 4, I'm not sure what crimes constitute a disqualification of a CHL, but I sincerely hope disorderly conduct doesn't count. Disorderly is about the weakest "crime" there is.

    Regarding section 3b, I wouldn't accept any certified mail that you're not expecting. If you don't sign for it, then you can't receive it, and you can't have your license revoked.
    Last edited by bigtoe416; 07-28-2012 at 01:00 AM.

  21. #21
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogbait View Post
    They're full of it. IIRC they must send you a certified letter informing you of revocation of license and allow an appeal. (Don't have ORS available on phone)
    You mean there is actually a process to which they must adhere?

    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Courts have this viewpoint as well ... its one of those "isolated" incidents .. that happen almost every day.

    He should sue and get some jingle out of it , maybe 5-10K.
    The value of a good education cannot be ignored. It's being suggested that he take them to school.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  22. #22
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Saint John in New Mexico got $25,000 for the unlawful siezure by law enforcement in Alamogordo and they didn't even arrest him.

    The young man in Virgina took the city to task several times for cha ching (and did it Pro Per)

    In both cases, the city and LEO were "educated"....because cities don't like paying out settlements. Unfortunately, that's the only way to "educate" our "protectors". You'd think showing "law enforcement" the LAW would be sufficient but alas.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    The value of a good education cannot be ignored. It's being suggested that he take them to school.
    Yeah, but they'll never graduate .. always being held back a grade...

    I can cipher on a 5th grade level! .. Jethro

  24. #24
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger
    My guess is they don't care if he's convicted. The officers lose nothing if he's not convicted, the officers lose nothing if the district attorney drops the charges. The officers even get paid to testify if the case goes to court - win or lose.

    I would posit that this is just the latest case of "You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride."
    This all sounds depressingly familiar.

    Quote Originally Posted by David West
    Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the charges never even made it past my court date in a couple weeks as I'm pretty sure the prime motivation of the cops who responded was simply to punish me any way they could.
    Hopefully you'll get a judge with some sense, but don't underestimate the possible corruption & hatred of not only the police, but the prosecutor's office.
    BTDT

    I don't see how anything I ever did could be considered impeding traffic, though.
    It doesn't have to be true, they just have to put it in their report(s) & be willing to testilie if it goes to court.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    State of Jefferson
    Posts
    36
    I got the police report today.

    According to the report, the van operator said that I stopped in eastbound traffic and blocked 2 cars for 15-20 seconds before moving to let them pass, which is absolutely NOT true. I ran across the street and only stopped upon reaching the other side. As soon as I can get my hands on my video camera or at least a copy of it's memory card (it's currently locked in the evidence locker) I'll be able to prove this claim patently false.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •