• 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.

My very first MWAG call....HAHA

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
I hope so, he's one of the more reasoned, intelligent posters here (not that the rest aren't!) and even if he doesn't believe it, it might be good to have someone play the Devil's Advocate on some subjects. :)
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
I do not disagree with you in the least (in fact I'm in full agreement), but the premise was that a refusal to answer the officer's questions gives him RAS.

If answering gives him RAS and not answering gives him RAS, then is there any way he wouldn't be able to conduct a search using the premise stated?

RAS must exist 'prior' to a detainment. If it doesn't, lack of answering questions under the 5th A protection does not create it. RAS can't be made out of whole cloth and a search still cannot be made without a warrant. RAS doesn't grant authority for a search, merely a stop. PC must be shown to proceed. And that is hard to establish when the suspect stands there saying nothing. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), PC must stand on its own for a warrant to be granted.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
RAS must exist 'prior' to a detainment. If it doesn't, lack of answering questions under the 5th A protection does not create it. RAS can't be made out of whole cloth and a search still cannot be made without a warrant. RAS doesn't grant authority for a search, merely a stop. PC must be shown to proceed. And that is hard to establish when the suspect stands there saying nothing. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), PC must stand on its own for a warrant to be granted.

you couldn't be more right.
 

DillonT

New member
Joined
Dec 25, 2012
Messages
4
Location
Colorado
What have I got to hide? Besides, I've always been the suspicious type when asking for something and not getting it because it was my job to check up on things to make sure everything is on the up and up.....but that's just me (Coming from military experience). Being suspicious of every cop can't be healthy.

^^This^^ Saying never talk to a LEO is just unfounded and very poor advice IMHO.

I love these kind of calls (yes, had one on me and was drawn upon by 5 officers). So stupid, same thing members of my family say to me when I OC. Would a shooter walk into a building openly displaying a handgun on his hip? No!
 

rootbrain

New member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
5
Location
colorado
All I see is a bunch of paranoia talking to be honest. She KNEW I was carrying. The people inside obviously described me and the vehicle I was in (I don't exactly have a non-descript vehicle) since it was almost right at the front door and before she drove into the parking lot, I did notice a few employees coming outside and looking at me and another friend that was riding with me (Total of 3, one inside talking with HR and the other with me). She was seeing if I was going to lie about it. AGAIN, from my experience in the military, it was perfectly normal questions and I had nothing to hide. But I guess that was obvious to me. What could she POSSIBLY do with my ID to arrest me with no previous record. OH WAIT...she doesn't know who I am and why I am there and for all she knows, I am a felon. And what happened once she found nothing? 5 minutes later she left vs arguing and 30 minutes later still arguing. Yeah, you don't HAVE to show ID....but I CHOSE to to get her out of my hair faster

I agree you did the "right" thing. You did what the good guys should do. This BS about you "gave up such and such" because you showed your id and cooperated due to having nothing to hide is just that, BS.

You people that questioned why he had such a good MWAG call when you've had only bad ones might stop and think about it some.

Rootbrain
 

rootbrain

New member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
5
Location
colorado
HA you and your few posts, stay here and get slammed for anything you say thats fine. DONT CARE WHAT YOU THINK dont care if you dont think its not cool dont think you think i should move from colorado do not CARE WHAT YOU THINK. if you had more than 20 posts, i might consider careing a little about what you say but you obviously just joined and have no clue whats going on. I love you speak for all of Colorado, yet you are still here on this site, not in the loop and have no idea whats going on. As for how i worded things, dont care if you cant read things correctly hey thats not my fault, and if your confused about it, you can always just ask without being a disrespectful peice of **** too! I dont care what you hope and i dont care if i get banned, this site is junk full of un logical, tin foil hat wearing, im always right because i think im the king **** people and thus why i am already quitting. I dont care if you Get what im "trying to say" or not. Now for the getting the hell out of colorado. feel free to come make me. because as far as im aware, its a free country, and your not a ruler of Colorado or anywhere. Has the great leader ever attended or met with anyone from the colorado forum yet? or is it just another one of them, ill talk a whole lot, but when it comes down to meeting up and talking in person i cant. Maybe i got enough attention on this thread now, to get it closed down like we were asking so many times before everyone left.. doubtful!


Reading this, I hope he doesn't own a gun. :screwy:

Rootbrain
 

Red Dawg

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
399
Location
Eastern VA, with too many people
Well, since this got necro'd: Why does anyone need to show a DL while sitting in a parking lot? What if the OP was in the passenger seat waiting, as in the other dude drove to the dealership? What if a kid was just sitting in the driver's seat? Just thoughts, and the CO fellers got all up in arms about people with experience "learning them"...I'm here to learn more, and sometimes I have to learn from others and my mistakes. Colorado, like many states does not have a "must show the papers" law...No Ras, no PC, no damn good reason, ask them why, and what they are wanting....
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Simply, you Don't need to show a driver's license while sitting in a parking lot. Only should you have been pulled over while in a parking lot having been previously observed violating a traffic ordinance prior to pulling in.

A person can do a lot of things that are "easier", giving in being among the easiest. I'll gladly 'waste an officer's valuable time better spent serving the community' by denying him or her my identification when not required to present it. Sooner or later, one has to decide to either 'make things easier' or to 'stand up for one's rights'. Every time one gives in, it only serves to reinforce the habit of authority to demand that which it has no authority to demand.
 
Last edited:

F350

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
941
Location
The High Plains of Wyoming
But this instance wasn't a case of "The officer was randomly driving directly behind me and saw my pistol through my car door" scenario. This wasn't a "No reason" situation. They HAVE to come out and investigate on a gun call...whether the person reporting it is correct in their assumption or not. Everyone yells about their rights being violated but when something doesn't happen because they didn't want to infringe on a person's rights, then they start yelling about "Why didn't they come out?":banghead: Also, "build a case" against me? On what grounds? So they can look at their records and go "OH LOOK!!!...THIS GUY BROKE NO LAWS MULTIPLE TIMES!!"

Random house searches?....really? That is so far fetched, it isn't even funny.

NO THEY DON'T do a little research; start with Warren v D.C.


I kinda envy you "Front Rangers" ya'll get all the fun; I don't think I could buy a MWAG call here on the Western Slope. Hell the most fun I get is a LEO request for backup when OCing.
 
Last edited:

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
NO THEY DON'T do a little research; start with Warren v D.C.
I kinda envy you "Front Rangers" ya'll get all the fun; I don't think I could buy a MWAG call here on the Western Slope. Hell the most fun I get is a LEO request for backup when OCing.

For those who don't wish to do the research, here's the entry on wikipedia (and I haven't found anything to dispute it.)

Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals (equivalent to a state supreme court) case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals.

In the early morning hours of Sunday, March 16, 1975, Carolyn Warren and Joan Taliaferro who shared a room on the third floor of their rooming house at 1112 Lamont Street Northwest in the District of Columbia, and Miriam Douglas, who shared a room on the second floor with her four-year-old daughter, were asleep. The women were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men later identified as Marvin Kent and James Morse. The men entered Douglas' second floor room, where Kent forced Douglas to sodomize him and Morse raped her.

Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas' screams from the floor below. Warren telephoned the police, told the officer on duty that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. The department employee told her to remain quiet and assured her that police assistance would be dispatched promptly.

Warren's call was received at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters at 0623 hours, and was recorded as a burglary-in-progress. At 0626, a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a "Code 2" assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as "Code 1." Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible suspect. (This suggests that when they heard that there had been a burglary, the police must have felt that they had a promising lead on a culprit.)

Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they observed one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 0633, five minutes after they arrived.

Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard Douglas' continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second call was received at 0642 and recorded merely as "investigate the trouble;" it was never dispatched to any police officers.

Believing the police might be in the house, Warren and Taliaferro called down to Douglas, thereby alerting Kent to their presence. At knife point, Kent and Morse then forced all three women to accompany them to Kent's apartment. For the next fourteen hours the captive women were raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon one another, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse.


IF the police had a DUTY to respond then they could be sued in court for failing to perform that duty. They can't be sued because they have no DUTY to the individual citizen, and no DUTY to respond to any particular citizen's calls.

The police can't be sued for failing to go out and investigate a call about an illegal activity, so they sure as heck can't be sued for failing to investigate lawful conduct.
 
Last edited:
Top