Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 35

Thread: Why You Should Always Exercise Your Right To Remain Silent

  1. #1
    Regular Member Cubex DE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    111

    Why You Should Always Exercise Your Right To Remain Silent

    First of all, let me say that I am not anti-cop. I do not oppose the police, nor am I trying to fight against them. I am completely in favor of the role that they are intended to play; that is, crime investigation and criminal arrest after a crime has been committed. The police were never intended to perform "presence patrols" down city streets, draw their weapons in the name of "officer safety," or to try to prevent crime before it happens or respond to it as it is happening. They were never intended to protect the public. Their original purpose is to investigate crimes and make arrests of suspects after the fact, and we are reminded on a constant basis that their patrols mean nothing and they don't have any obligation (or, indeed, the ability) to protect us. Most of us are on this forum because we recognize that we must take the initiative to protect ourselves instead of depending on the police to do it, since this is neither their purpose or within their means.

    What I do oppose is the current culture in the law enforcement community that promotes the ideas that the general public that they are meant to serve is somehow lower than them, that we are second-rate citizens, and that we do not deserve their respect or the rights that God has given to all men, including the right to keep and bear arms in our defense. In general, many of us have found that most cops, while claiming to be pro-gun, oppose the right of the individual citizen to carry a firearm. Some cops even oppose CC, even making insane threats of violence, as we have all been shocked to find out. They believe that since they enforce the law, they are above it, and can do anything without repercussions, imposing their own will in the name of "public safety." Corruption reigns supreme throughout the entire "justice" system, with people sworn to uphold the law taking pride in their ability to punish innocent people. Worse, when they do violently break the law, the entire law enforcement community rallies behind them with support and tries to skew the facts in their favor, even when the cop was clearly in the wrong. A recent case that occurred in my own city happened when an unarmed and mentally disabled janitor was falsely accused of robbery, resulting in multiple officers beating and tasing him. He died two days later from the massive internal injuries caused by the blunt trauma. Only one officer responsible was convicted of using excessive force, all while being saluted in the courtroom by multiple uniformed members of his former department.

    Furthermore, I am strongly against the way the police conduct their investigations through lying and coercion. As many of you already know, the police are trained to lie to you, and to word their requests in such a way as to convince you that you are legally required to do something or to consent to letting them do something ("You don't mind if I take a look in your trunk, do you?"), and even if you can prove in court that they lied to you, coerced you, or intimidated you to obtain their evidence, nothing will happen to them, nor will your charges be dismissed, because a cop lying to you or coercing you through intimidation is not illegal.

    With all of that being said, it is clearly NOT in our best interest to open our mouths and convey any information to the police. Many will disagree, saying that they haven't done anything wrong and therefore have nothing to hide... but this is in blatant ignorance to the fact the the Fifth Amendment was never intended to protect the guilty, but the innocent! The founding fathers knew that if you have done nothing wrong, then you should not need to say anything and the police have no business questioning you. You should refuse to answer their questions and continue on your way, knowing full well that you are guilty of no crime and therefore you should not be under suspicion in the first place. In other words, keep your mouth shut, not because you have nothing to hide, but because you have nothing to share.

    I know this forum is all about OC, and I am very pro-OC, but let me take a moment and address the CC'ers in this paragraph. If you are OC-only as I am, feel free to skip this paragraph while I address my CC'ing brethren. In some states, it is required in interactions with the police that you disclose your carry of a weapon to the cop and that you immediately present your license or permit to do so. I advise that you do not live in one of these states, as there are many other (gun-friendly) states to choose from. If, however, you wake up one morning to find that you have mysteriously been transplanted into one of these states, I would advise that you move somewhere else immediately. Once you are successful in doing so, you should never disclose your carry of a concealed weapon to any cop ever again. Even if they ask, your response should be that you choose to remain silent. Why? Because, as discussed above, many police think you are beneath them, and they may not be too happy to discover that they are not the only ones with guns.

    Back to the topic at hand. Some of you may still not be convinced, errantly thinking that if you are innocent, your truthful testimony of innocence cannot possibly get you in trouble. This is completely and utterly false, and you could not be more mistaken. This video should be required viewing for every citizen of the United States, as it shows a criminal defense attorney urging innocent people to keep their stupid mouths shut whenever interacting with the police, followed by a veteran detective absolutely agreeing with everything the attorney just said. Example after example of innocent people being sent to prison and exactly how it happened are given, and every one of them could have been avoided by simply choosing to remain silent.

    The simple fact is that, so long as the police continue their parade of intimidation patrols, their attempts to harass and bother law abiding citizens who choose to exercise their rights, and their total ignorance of the law and abuse of the powers given to them, nobody should ever speak to the police, give them any information or answer any questions, and we should all minimize any contact with the police and be sure to inform them that their contact with us is not consensual or voluntary on our part. They won't like it, but let's face it: it's not going to get us in any deeper trouble than carrying a firearm will, and those of us who OC (or even CC) have accepted the fact that we are going to be harassed by the police for doing nothing wrong. Don't let their intimidation tactics work, and we will collectively show them that, while they are entitled to their own personal feelings regarding our possession and carry of a firearm, their opinion has no place in performing their duties and we will not make the harassment easy for them. We OC so that we are not an easy target for criminals; we need to stop being one for dirty cops.

    I have my bowl of popcorn ready; let the debate commence!
    Last edited by Cubex DE; 10-18-2012 at 03:18 PM. Reason: Added some more links.
    Jesus thought it was more important to be armed than well dressed:

    Then said He unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his
    scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.~Luke 22:36

    (Emphasis mine.)

    (Note that the word "garment" here refers to an outer cloak, equivalent to today's sport coats or
    suit jackets in that they both provided warmth and conveyed a certain level of sophistication.)

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    I only skimmed the OP, but what I saw makes sense. Obviously the OPer put some time into his composition.

    My only suggestion would be to abandon the card-reading idea. I can't imagine too many cops letting that be read uninterrupted. Plus, in states like Washington where OC has gotten a lot of official attention, they know the deal. While there may always be a cop who didn't get the word or slept through the briefing, the rest know the deal on OC and reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS). Plus, you just give them a reason to demand your ID while you have your wallet out. And, I don't know that its a great idea to be reaching for things behind your back in front of an adversarial cop which he surely is if he's investigating you; and remember, you've got at least one weapon in view.

    We've gone a long way on a simple logic flow chart. My suggestion would be to follow more along that line:

    "Officer, no offense, I know you're just doing your job but I do not consent to an encounter with you."
    "Am I being detained?"
    "Am I free to go?"
    "I wouldn't care to answer any questions without an attorney."
    "I wouldn't consent to any searches or seizures."

    The simplest thing is to do like the fella in the one video who literally says not one word to the cop while videoing the encounter. Leaves the cop standing there asking questions until the cop finally gives up.

    The next level up could be said to be what I mentioned above. Simply exercising one's rights. Keep in mind that by doing that you are also protecting your legal position should it be a bad cop and the situation deteriorates. As mentioned in the video Busted: A Citizen's Guide to Surviving A Police Encounter, if the cop does something wrong, your attorney can ask to have that bit of evidence disallowed.

    A step up from that level is to ask questions to get the cop to give you ammunition for a lawsuit or formal written complaint. "Why am I being detained?" "Because you're carrying a gun." To self: "Thank you for admitting this is an illegal detention, copper." Outwardly, "Oh, my. Did a caller allege something illegal?" "No one called, I saw you when I was driving past." To self: "Thank you for reinforcing the illegal aspect of the detention, officer." Lots of seemingly curious questions you can ask to get the cop to admit on your voice-recorder the holes in his legal position. It may turn out later that he had more RAS than he told you and his legal position was solid, but then again it may not. If experience is any guide, its more likely that a detaining cop does not have a solid legal position, so it helps, in my mind, to gently probe for ammo. If you're up to it.

    A big point in all this is to remain calm, almost friendly. This makes you look good on any recordings. The smoother and polished you sound on the recording, the more you highlight how much of a jerk the cop is being.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Contrarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Seattle,WA, , USA
    Posts
    266

    Arrow right to remain silent...almost.

    BIG SNIP - -


    "PLEASE NOTE: I choose to exercise my right to remain silent in response to any and all questions you may ask me, including (but not limited to) questions inquiring my name, age, place of residence, Social Security number, mental health, if I have a valid Concealed Pistol License, my location of origin, my destination, if I am a felon, if I have ever been arrested, if I have been convicted of any crime(s), any information regarding my firearm, its mechanisms, status, functionality, purpose, or ammunition, if I possess any other weapons, or my reason(s) for possessing or carrying a firearm. I also refuse to surrender any identifying information or documents of any kind.

    I have my bowl of popcorn ready; let the debate commence!"


    See the link -

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060102114.html




    In essence [if I read this correctly] you must TELL the officer that you are invoking your rights under Miranda.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Cubex DE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by Contrarian View Post
    In essence [if I read this correctly] you must TELL the officer that you are invoking your rights under Miranda.
    So how about: "I choose to exercise my right to remain silent under Miranda v. Arizona in response to any and all questions you may ask me..."

    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen
    My only suggestion would be to abandon the card-reading idea.
    I understand your argument. I only thought it would be good to have as a backup. I particularly like the silent approach, and also the "curious questions" approach!
    Jesus thought it was more important to be armed than well dressed:

    Then said He unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his
    scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.~Luke 22:36

    (Emphasis mine.)

    (Note that the word "garment" here refers to an outer cloak, equivalent to today's sport coats or
    suit jackets in that they both provided warmth and conveyed a certain level of sophistication.)

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Zip it and then walk away when/if the cop says "you are free to go," it is just that simple.

    If they give you a ride downtown....."I want a lawyer." Four words, simple.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  6. #6
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Zip it and then walk away when/if the cop says "you are free to go," it is just that simple.

    If they give you a ride downtown....."I want a lawyer." Four words, simple.
    Though, I do ask "are you requesting or are you ordering me to __________?"
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Cubex DE View Post
    So how about: "I choose to exercise my right to remain silent under Miranda v. Arizona in response to any and all questions you may ask me..."
    I would keep it really, really simple. The cop already knows about Miranda v Arizona and the right against self-incrimination.

    In one sense, you're not even really saying it for the cop's benefit, but the court's, should it end up there.

    "No offense, officer, but I don't care to answer any questions without an attorney." You don't have to say those exact words. My point is to keep it very simple.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Cubex DE View Post
    SNIP I understand your argument. I only thought it would be good to have as a backup. I particularly like the silent approach, and also the "curious questions" approach!
    I left out something important.

    If you are going to engage the cop--that is to say argue with him, verbally joust, lay traps, whatever--you also have to understand the mechanics of it. By this I mean there are two things happening. There is the information going back and forth. And, there is the mechanics of it, regardless of the subject matter. The mechanics are just as important as the words said.

    For example, expect the cop to interrupt you. Expect the cop to just assume you are going to answer questions. Expect the cop to dodge your questions. Expect the cop to respond to you by just asking another question. Expect the cop to turn your question into a question back to you, for example, you ask if you are free to go, and he asks where are you going? This is all mental stuff. It has nothing to do with the words being said; you could be talking about a cookie recipe. It has to do with conversational tactics. Cops are expert at it because they do it for a living, meaning frequently, so they have lots and lots of practice.
    Last edited by Citizen; 10-16-2012 at 01:28 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Unless you're very aware of what you're doing, remaining silent when the cops start fishing is always a good idea.

    On the other hand, sometimes there's no harm in baiting a hook and throwing in a line as well. You never know what inadvertent admissions you can catch them making when they get all flustered.
    https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B3D...mZrUnZoTVRaWXc <- limited downloads available on a daily basis.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    When a cop asks you a probative question just reply: you're the detective, figure it out yourself. They love this answer.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I left out something important.

    If you are going to engage the cop--that is to say argue with him, verbally joust, lay traps, whatever--you also have to understand the mechanics of it. By this I mean there are two things happening. There is the information going back and forth. And, there is the mechanics of it, regardless of the subject matter. The mechanics are just as important as the words said.

    For example, expect the cop to interrupt you. Expect the cop to just assume you are going to answer questions. Expect the cop to dodge your questions. Expect the cop to respond to you by just asking another question. Expect the cop to turn your question into a question back to you, for example, you ask if you are free to go, and he asks where are you going? This is all mental stuff. It has nothing to do with the words being said; you could be talking about a cookie recipe. It has to do with conversational tactics. Cops are expert at it because they do it for a living, meaning frequently, so they have lots and lots of practice.
    I am glad you did point this part out.

    I remember a traffic stop once where the cop asked me where I was going and I told him that I was going "that way". He accused me of being cagey and kept asking me where I was going. I told him "that way". He didn't like that. Yes I was armed.

    I have got to not answer questions in anyway shape or form when the cops ask me a question.

    A shake of nod of the your head is still answering questions in their book.


    However, it takes practice. If you don't have police encounters then get a friend and play pretend with that friend.
    It's not something most people can do the first time. Take time to meditate it seems to help.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  12. #12
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    When a cop asks you a probative question just reply: you're the detective, figure it out yourself. They love this answer.
    So you're a wise guy, is that right punk?
    I'll show you.

    At that point things turn from funny into ugly.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  13. #13
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    What's he gonna do?

    At that point he's either going to change tactics, arrest/cite me for disobeying the law, or more probably step on his .

    Sgt. Chapel "Why are you pushing it?
    "I’m not, I’m trying to leave so I can finish my walk, and lose some of this ton of weight I’ve got.
    Sgt. Chapel "You’re not going to identify where you live? What if you died right now? What if you passed out, what would you want us to do for you?"
    "Ummm.. kick me to the curb?"
    Sgt. Chapel "You know, your permit is a privilege as well as a right. It can be taken away from you as well."
    "By the Probate Court Judge, would you like the number?"
    Sgt. Chapel "We have the number."

    Sgt. Chapel "And when you’re given a permit you’re expected to cooperate a little bit with law enforcement."
    "Actually, I’m required to cooperate; as required by law.
    Sgt. Chapel "Why aren’t you?

    "What am I not doing that’s required?
    Sgt. Chapel (silence)

    "What am I not doing that’s required, Sergeant Chapel?
    Sgt. Chapel (silence)
    Sgt. Chapel "Did you drive here, sir, or did you walk here?"

    "What Am I Not Doing That’s Required, Sergeant Chapel?"
    Sgt. Chapel "Did you drive here, or did you walk here?

    "What...Am...I...Not...Doing...That’s...Requir ed, Sergeant Chapel?"
    Sgt. Chapel "There you go, right there."
    At this point Sgt Chapel either got distracted by something shiny or thought he left the iron on at home; either way he wandered off.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 10-16-2012 at 03:44 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    50
    Great Posts by all. Really learned a lot about encounters and how to handle one's self when dealing the Police. I have not had any issues with them so far, but this helps me prepare just in case. Thanks!

  15. #15
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    "No offense, officer, but I don't care to answer any questions without an attorney." You don't have to say those exact words. My point is to keep it very simple.
    I couldn't care less if it offends him or not and haven't the slightest inclination to pretend otherwise.

    "I have nothing to say without an attorney present."

    If that offends him, he can hold his breath until he turns blue.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Deanimator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    If you are going to engage the cop
    That's where people get themselves into trouble. They want to engage in "Law & Order" style "witty banter".

    For some reason puzzling to me, people want to debate with, convince, embarrass, etc. police. I don't want ANYTHING to do with the police AT ALL. Not talking to them is second nature.
    --- Gun control: The theory that 110lb. women have the "right" to fistfight with 210lb. rapists.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Why You Should Always Exercise Your Right To Remain Silent

    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    Unless you're very aware of what you're doing, remaining silent when the cops start fishing is always a good idea.

    On the other hand, sometimes there's no harm in baiting a hook and throwing in a line as well. You never know what inadvertent admissions you can catch them making when they get all flustered.
    https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B3D...mZrUnZoTVRaWXc <- limited downloads available on a daily basis.
    OK, ya got me. What happened next? When last we saw Chris, he was under arrest, and it seems that the cops turned off the recorder, you know yet one that captured them conspiring to arrest Chris for no good reason, even expressing their joy at being able to take folks to jail!

    Well? Go on....


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  18. #18
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    OpenCarry.Org "Suspicious walking in the park" - I don't want to detract too much from this thread so...
    ... the recording lasted all the way up till the actual arrest
    ... spent 13hrs in jail
    ... case was Nolle Prosequi'd (what IS the past tense of Nolle Prosequi anyway?)
    ... the security guard's insurance company (edit: Plaza Security's insurance co.) asked to be dropped from the case in exchange for a fistful of thousand dollar bills
    ... the case against Bell and Dantzler remains
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 10-16-2012 at 08:31 PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Logan 5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    690
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    ... case was Nolle Prosequi'd (what IS the past tense of Nolle Prosequi anyway?)
    As snipped from Wikipedia....
    Nolle prosequi;[1] Classical Latin: [ˈnolːe ˈproːsekwiː]) is legal term of art and a Latin legal phrase meaning "be unwilling to pursue",[2] a phrase amounting to "do not prosecute". It is a phrase used in many common law criminal prosecution contexts to describe a prosecutor's decision to voluntarily discontinue criminal charges either before trial or before a verdict is rendered.[3] It contrasts with an involuntary dismissal.

    Nolle prosequi as a declaration is most often used in criminal cases, but in jurisdictions making use of nolle prosequi in civil lawsuits, is used by a plaintiff to voluntarily drop its claims. In civil cases, a motion for voluntary dismissal may be made by a plaintiff instead of a declaration of nolle prosequi, depending upon the custom and rules of a given jurisdiction.
    IOW you had them by their nuts. Ya shoulda squeezed hard, and I bet you'd have had two fist full of cash instead of just one.
    Lifetime member, Gun Owners of America (http://gunowners.org/)
    Lifetime member, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (http://jpfo.org/)
    Member, Fraternal Order of Eagles since 8/02 (http://www.foe.com/)

    Registering gun owners to prevent crime, is like registering Jews to prevent a HOLOCAUST.

    I am not a lawyer in real life, or in play life. So anything I say is for debate and discussion only.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    ... the case against Officers Adam Garth Bell and Rodney Dantzler remains
    The fat lady ain't sung on that one yet.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Cubex DE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    the security guard's insurance company (edit: Plaza Security's insurance co.) asked to be dropped from the case in exchange for a fistful of thousand dollar bills
    IMHO, he should not have accepted the settlement. The only way something makes its way into case law is if the case runs its course. A settlement means the security company was not necessarily at fault, while a lawsuit resulting in the security company losing would ensure that they (and other security firms) would be very careful not to make such an expensive mistake again.

    I hope the officers, particularly the one that said that arresting people was one of the "perks" of being a LEO, are permanently removed from duty: they obviously don't understand (or care to understand) the law and don't mind arresting innocent people just because they have a difference of opinion with them.
    Jesus thought it was more important to be armed than well dressed:

    Then said He unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his
    scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.~Luke 22:36

    (Emphasis mine.)

    (Note that the word "garment" here refers to an outer cloak, equivalent to today's sport coats or
    suit jackets in that they both provided warmth and conveyed a certain level of sophistication.)

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The settlement does not create new case law, but it does provide an object lesson. This company will adjust its actions and training. Other security companies will look at what happened here and make similar adjustments. The case against the officers who did a lot more damage is proceeding.

    While you or I may have made different choices, we weren't the one who went to jail. The one who goes to jail gets to make the call, and I, for one, will not question it. Our cause has been furthered, so my only comment about the incident is, "Thanks!"

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Pocono Mountains of PA
    Posts
    138
    "AM I FREE TO GO?" Best question to ask when engaged in any police encounter ... otherwise ...

    ... just SHUT UP!

    You should NOT talk to the police for any reason. The 5th Amendment permits you to not say anything

    ... just SHUT UP!

    If and for any reason you feel compelled to be the "nice guy", the "cooperative type", you can not believe the trouble you can get into once you open your big mouth.

    ,,, just SHUT UP!

    There's no need to be nasty about it but ...

    ... just SHUT UP!

    tyc

  24. #24
    Regular Member Cubex DE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by tyc View Post
    ... just SHUT UP!
    An excellent summary.
    Jesus thought it was more important to be armed than well dressed:

    Then said He unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his
    scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.~Luke 22:36

    (Emphasis mine.)

    (Note that the word "garment" here refers to an outer cloak, equivalent to today's sport coats or
    suit jackets in that they both provided warmth and conveyed a certain level of sophistication.)

  25. #25
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    974
    I do agree, Remaining silent is one of the most effective defenses or strategies. But it does help to learn and understand the situation so here is some detention info to better educate and help people to understand the different levels and what is involved in a detention.

    RAS(Reasonable Articulated Suspicion, Detentions and Arrests)

    Officers were educated on ID'ing, were polite and professional and admitted they were wrong on video

    Detentions and Arrests, info and definitions by cowboyridn

    Detention descriptions, consensual and when to walk away. An informational read

    3 Different levels of Police/Citizen encounters Explained

    4th and 5th Amendment Resources by user Citizen

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1027378.html
    The only fact that saves the officer's stop of DeBerry, in my opinion, is the fact that it is unlawful in Illinois to carry a concealed weapon.
    The tipster informed the police that DeBerry was armed, and it appears from the facts before us that the weapon was not in plain view.
    I do not agree that this case would necessarily come out the same way if Illinois law, like the law of many states, authorized the carrying of concealed weapons.
    At that point, the entire content of the anonymous tip would be a physical description of the individual, his location, and an allegation that he was carrying something lawful (a cellular telephone? a beeper? a firearm?).
    This kind of nonincriminatory allegation, in my view, would not be enough to justify the kind of investigatory stop that took place here.

    This section authorizes officers to demand identification only when a person is suspected of committing a crime, but does not govern the lawfulness of requests for identification in other circumstances. State v. Griffith, 2000 WI 72, 236 Wis. 2d 48, 613 N.W.2d 72, 98-0931.
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...=1&oi=scholarr
    52 F.3d 194 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Coye Denise GREEN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 94-1675. United States Court of App

    Regalado v. State, 25 So. 3d 600 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 2009
    "Despite the obvious potential danger to officers and the public by a person in possession of a concealed gun in a crowd, this is not illegal in Florida unless the person does not have a concealed weapons permit, a fact that an officer cannot glean by mere observation. Based upon our understanding of both Florida and United States Supreme Court precedent, stopping a person solely on the ground that the individual possesses a gun violates the Fourth Amendment."


    In evaluating the validity of investigatory stops, we must consider the "totality of the circumstances--the whole picture." United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 8, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 1585, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989) (quoting United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417, 101 S.Ct. 690, 695, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981)). Reasonable suspicion must derive from more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch.' " Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1883, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). Moreover, "[c]onduct typical of a broad category of innocent people provides a weak basis for suspicion." United States v. Weaver, 966 F.2d 391, 394 (8th Cir.) (quoting United States v. Crawford, 891 F.2d 680, 681 (8th Cir.1989)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 829, 121 L.Ed.2d 699 (1992).

    A number of the factors relied upon by Carrill can be characterized as "conduct typical of a broad category of innocent people." Weaver, 966 F.2d at 394. We reject the notion that Green's travelling alone, carrying a small bag, wearing new and baggy clothes, and failing to make eye contact with Carrill, are in any way indicative of criminal activity. Thus, these factors cannot play a role in assessing the validity of the investigatory stop.

    Under Florida v. J.L., an anonymous tip giving rise to reasonable suspicion must bear indicia of reliability. That the tipster's anonymity is placed at risk indicates that the informant is genuinely concerned and not a fallacious prankster. Corroborated aspects of the tip also lend credibility; the corroborated actions of the suspect need be inherently criminal in and of themselves., 2001 WI 21, 241 Wis. 2d 631, 623 N.W.2d 106, 96-1821. State v. Williams

    “Mr. St. John’s lawful possession of a loaded firearm in a crowded place could not, by itself, create a reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify an investigatory detention.” St. John v. McColley

    The Tenth Circuit found that an investigatory detention initiated by an officer after he discovered that the defendant lawfully possessed a loaded firearm lacked sufficient basis because the firearm alone did not create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
    United States v. King (1993)

    “The mere presence of firearms does not create exigent circumstances.” WI v. Kiekhefer (1997)

    An anonymous tip is not RAS

    ID'ing yourself discussion



    General Important Videos: (Click to follow links)

    How to Remain silent when questioned by Police

    Don't Talk to Cops (PLEASE WATCH, Important for any and all Law Enforcement Encounters)

    DUI Refusal

    Another DUI refusal

    How to refuse a Police Search
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •