Disturbing the peace??

I had a friend tell me that a rent a cop told them that a cop could charge them for OC under " Disturbing the peace". I see this alot on youtube... cops constantly telling people they are disturbing the peace. Is there any validity to this kind of threat?

I'm no expert but I would assume if they are charging them with disturbing the peace they are also/ or just are being charged with that ever present ignorance known as GATTTOTP

KainVictus said:

I'm no expert but I would assume if they are charging them with disturbing the peace they are also/ or just are being charged with that ever present ignorance known as GATTTOTP

Click to expand...

GATTTOTP is a North Carolina issue, if I recall correctly. There is no such law in Virginia.

Not to say that LEOs have and do charge people with fabricated violations. I would strongly suggest if such happens, that you immediately contact VCDL for referral to a competent gun-rights attorney. It happens, but we don't generally stand around and cry about it. More than one LE agency has had to pay significant sums of cash to rectify such kinds of shenanigans.

TFred

BTW: GATTTOTP = Going Armed To The Terror Of The Public.

Been doing it for more than a year, zero issues.

Sent from my Motorola Galaxy s3 using Tapatalk 2

Public disturbance requires proof of an intentional act likely to incite a violent response. Here's one statute:

§ 18.2-416. Punishment for using abusive language to another.

If any person shall, in the presence or hearing of another, curse or abuse such other person, or use any violent abusive language to such person concerning himself or any of his relations, or otherwise use such language, under circumstances reasonably calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, he shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.

Click to expand...

§ 18.2-415. Disorderly conduct in public places.

A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with the intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:

A. In any street, highway, public building, or while in or on a public conveyance, or public place engages in conduct having a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person or persons at whom, individually, such conduct is directed; or

B. Willfully or being intoxicated, whether willfully or not, and whether such intoxication results from self-administered alcohol or other drug of whatever nature, disrupts any funeral, memorial service, or meeting of the governing body of any political subdivision of this Commonwealth or a division or agency thereof, or of any school, literary society or place of religious worship, if the disruption (i) prevents or interferes with the orderly conduct of the funeral, memorial service, or meeting or (ii) has a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person or persons at whom, individually, the disruption is directed; or

C. Willfully or while intoxicated, whether willfully or not, and whether such intoxication results from self-administered alcohol or other drug of whatever nature, disrupts the operation of any school or any activity conducted or sponsored by any school, if the disruption (i) prevents or interferes with the orderly conduct of the operation or activity or (ii) has a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person or persons at whom, individually, the disruption is directed.

However, the conduct prohibited under subdivision A, B or C of this section shall not be deemed to include the utterance or display of any words or to include conduct otherwise made punishable under this title.

The person in charge of any such building, place, conveyance, meeting, operation or activity may eject therefrom any person who violates any provision of this section, with the aid, if necessary, of any persons who may be called upon for such purpose.

The governing bodies of counties, cities and towns are authorized to adopt ordinances prohibiting and punishing the acts and conduct prohibited by this section, provided that the punishment fixed therefor shall not exceed that prescribed for a Class 1 misdemeanor. A person violating any provision of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

user said:

Not in Virginia. Public disturbance requires proof of an intentional act likely to incite a violent response. This statute is as close as we come:

Click to expand...

Dan, I appreciate all the help. I find it very amusing that you replied to this. When I moved to Virginia recently I googled " pro gun attorneys" in case I ever needed to contact an attorney with any self defense or open carry issues if one ever arised so I put your number in my phone. What are the odds?

Just remember, an ill-informed or angry officer might charge you with anything he can come up with to subdue you. Many of us carry a voice recorder or have a phone with an app to record and maybe immediately upload all conversations.

While you still may be arrested, you might also have good material for a defense and possible payday (don't mean to sound as if I am looking for a payday).

Also a good idea to have enough cash or credit for bail set aside in case an overzealous LEO does arrest you for "contempt of cop".

Question for User: can I bail myself out with my credit card?

cjakesnyder1988 said:

I had a friend tell me that a rent a cop told them that a cop could ....

Click to expand...

Third-hand information is to be distrusted unless a citation to statute/ordinance accompanies it and independent analysis of the citation confirms the proffered information.

Very few "rentacops" are certified by DCJS as having passed the required training and are commissioned by their local Circuit Court to arrest with the same powers as a sworn LEO. The majority have a very limited statutory authority to execute a citizen's arrest in very limited and specific situations. That to explain that very few "rentacops" (Unarmed/Armed Security Officers) have any incentive to know what the law is.

A LEO can do just about anything they want to, given that they have in their possession all sorts of implements of force and violence and most folks have been taught and currently beieve that fighting with a cop is both physically bad and will bring serious negative consequences ion the ensuing courtroom appearance. LEO are a special class that is not, by judicial standard, required to know what the law actually is. They can either violate the law or make up stuff out of thin air and get away with it if they can convince a judge they were acting "in good faith" - even when there have been repeated rulings that have become part of case law that clearly say they can not legally do that.

You can be arrested, charged, and booked into custody for the alleged violation of of a law that doies not exist, and the only way you can get out of jail is by showing up in court and making a judge believe that the law used does not exist or does not apply to what you were alleged to have been doing that was supposed to be a violation of the law. Most often this is done at trial by an attorney. (If you prevail you may (but sometimes are not allowed to, and sometimes shown it is too costly in both time and finances) seek to recover damages and costs incurred.

On the other hand, if you do not stand up to some JBT who feels the need to assert their "Authoritay" they get away with doing it tro you, and may feel like thewy can get away with doing it to anybody else.

All of which is why, when a friend tells you that someone told them that ___, you should look them straight in the eyes and say "Prove it to me." (Regardless of the outcome someone is going to walk away knowing something they did not previously know.)

stay safe.

skidmark said:

Third-hand information is to be distrusted unless a citation to statute/ordinance accompanies it and independent analysis of the citation confirms the proffered information.

Very few "rentacops" are certified by DCJS as having passed the required training and are commissioned by their local Circuit Court to arrest with the same powers as a sworn LEO. The majority have a very limited statutory authority to execute a citizen's arrest in very limited and specific situations. That to explain that very few "rentacops" (Unarmed/Armed Security Officers) have any incentive to know what the law is.

A LEO can do just about anything they want to, given that they have in their possession all sorts of implements of force and violence and most folks have been taught and currently beieve that fighting with a cop is both physically bad and will bring serious negative consequences ion the ensuing courtroom appearance. LEO are a special class that is not, by judicial standard, required to know what the law actually is. They can either violate the law or make up stuff out of thin air and get away with it if they can convince a judge they were acting "in good faith" - even when there have been repeated rulings that have become part of case law that clearly say they can not legally do that.

You can be arrested, charged, and booked into custody for the alleged violation of of a law that doies not exist, and the only way you can get out of jail is by showing up in court and making a judge believe that the law used does not exist or does not apply to what you were alleged to have been doing that was supposed to be a violation of the law. Most often this is done at trial by an attorney. (If you prevail you may (but sometimes are not allowed to, and sometimes shown it is too costly in both time and finances) seek to recover damages and costs incurred.

On the other hand, if you do not stand up to some JBT who feels the need to assert their "Authoritay" they get away with doing it tro you, and may feel like thewy can get away with doing it to anybody else.

All of which is why, when a friend tells you that someone told them that ___, you should look them straight in the eyes and say "Prove it to me." (Regardless of the outcome someone is going to walk away knowing something they did not previously know.)

stay safe.

Click to expand...

And that Ladies and Gentlemen, is the voice of experience and should be taken very seriously!!!

palerider116 said:

§ 18.2-415. Disorderly conduct in public places.

A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with the intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:

A. In any street, highway, public building, or while in or on a public conveyance, or public place engages in conduct having a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person or persons at whom, individually, such conduct is directed; or

...[Snip]...

The governing bodies of counties, cities and towns are authorized to adopt ordinances prohibiting and punishing the acts and conduct prohibited by this section, provided that the punishment fixed therefor shall not exceed that prescribed for a Class 1 misdemeanor. A person violating any provision of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Click to expand...

State Code may not be very specific about "Disorderly Conduct" or "Disturbing the Peace", both of which can mean different things are tolerated in one jurisdiction (or part of one) but not in another. For example, "loitering" or "panhandling" might be illegal by local ordinance in the business district during the day, but only at night in a public park which closes at dusk, or at a bus stop after the buses stop running for the day. Arresting and prosecuting a homeless person isn't beneficial financially as a local ordinance violation, since they locality has to foot the expenses, so it's sometimes preferable to bring charges under state code, as the costs are passed on to the commonwealth. Homeless people usually lack the resources to pay fines which would credit to the locality if charged under local ordinance. Fortunately, state preemption laws offer some protection for firearms violations charges. But then, be careful how you emphasize what you say...

Actually, all security is required to be DCJS certified, whether armed or unarmed. A temporary exemption can be granted for emergency circumstances.

§ 9.1-139. Licensing, certification, and registration required; qualifications; temporary licenses.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+coh+9.1-139+501828

2a4all said:

.... Arresting and prosecuting a homeless person isn't beneficial financially as a local ordinance violation, since they locality has to foot the expenses, so it's sometimes preferable to bring charges under state code, as the costs are passed on to the commonwealth ....

Click to expand...

I beg your pardon? [/church lady voice]

Being charged under local ordinance or under state law determines who bears the costs? Since when? You absolutely must provide a citation for that assertion.

Sorry for the thread drift, but that cannot be allowed to go any farther until it is cleared up.

stay safe.

user said:

Not in Virginia. Public disturbance requires proof of an intentional act likely to incite a violent response. This statute is as close as we come:

Click to expand...

So with that cite of Virginia law in mind, that would seem to indicate that if an out of control LEO used foul language directed towards a citizen he has detained, then the LEO would be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor. Right?

Sorry palerider116...,

palerider116 said:

Actually, all security is required to be DCJS certified, whether armed or unarmed. A temporary exemption can be granted for emergency circumstances.

§ 9.1-139. Licensing, certification, and registration required; qualifications; temporary licenses.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+coh+9.1-139+501828

Click to expand...

As much as I enjoy your many posts and usually wholeheartedly agree with them, your statement that "all security is required to be DCJS certified, armed or unarmed." is not accurate. "In-house" Security has no such requirement. I can't give you a cite because much like there being no law that says open carry is legal, "In-house" Security isn't addressed, only certain types of security such as contract security or "for hire" Security are addressed by the state.

You might be surprised to know that there are state Security Officers who have been armed and had no DCJS certification at all. Then again, maybe you wouldn't.

For anyone wondering, "In-house" Security would be for instance Hospital Security, Bank Security, etc. where the Security employees work solely for the Company and their services are not leased or contracted out to another entity. Wachovia, Central Fidelity, had their own "In-house" Security, including armored cars for currency transport, all with out a single requirement from DCJS.

While not always required, DCJS training is a great asset to anyone considering such employment, and training schools such as Security Operations Services is a great place to learn. I highly recommend the training and the school! It has the purpose and potential to save us all a lot of grief.

To the casual observer, Security and Law Enforcement might seem closely related, but the experienced know, they do and are to conduct business in fairly different manners.

sidestreet

Jeremiah 29 v. 11-13

we are not equal, we will never be equal, but we must be relentless.

sidestreet said:

As much as I enjoy your many posts and usually wholeheartedly agree with them, your statement that "all security is required to be DCJS certified, armed or unarmed." is not accurate. "In-house" Security has no such requirement. I can't give you a cite because much like there being no law that says open carry is legal, "In-house" Security isn't addressed, only certain types of security such as contract security or "for hire" Security are addressed by the state.

You might be surprised to know that there are state Security Officers who have been armed and had no DCJS certification at all. Then again, maybe you wouldn't.

For anyone wondering, "In-house" Security would be for instance Hospital Security, Bank Security, etc. where the Security employees work solely for the Company and their services are not leased or contracted out to another entity. Wachovia, Central Fidelity, had their own "In-house" Security, including armored cars for currency transport, all with out a single requirement from DCJS.

While not always required, DCJS training is a great asset to anyone considering such employment, and training schools such as Security Operations Services is a great place to learn. I highly recommend the training and the school! It has the purpose and potential to save us all a lot of grief.

To the casual observer, Security and Law Enforcement might seem closely related, but the experienced know, they do and are to conduct business in fairly different manners.

sidestreet

Jeremiah 29 v. 11-13

we are not equal, we will never be equal, but we must be relentless.

Click to expand...

I knew that Sidestreet but I was always under the impression that in house security had to be unarmed.
It appears that is not so. Learn something new every day.

Wewll said, but

sidestreet said:

As much as I enjoy your many posts and usually wholeheartedly agree with them, your statement that "all security is required to be DCJS certified, armed or unarmed." is not accurate. "In-house" Security has no such requirement. I can't give you a cite because much like there being no law that says open carry is legal, "In-house" Security isn't addressed, only certain types of security such as contract security or "for hire" Security are addressed by the state.

You might be surprised to know that there are state Security Officers who have been armed and had no DCJS certification at all. Then again, maybe you wouldn't.

For anyone wondering, "In-house" Security would be for instance Hospital Security, Bank Security, etc. where the Security employees work solely for the Company and their services are not leased or contracted out to another entity. Wachovia, Central Fidelity, had their own "In-house" Security, including armored cars for currency transport, all with out a single requirement from DCJS.

While not always required, DCJS training is a great asset to anyone considering such employment, and training schools such as Security Operations Services is a great place to learn. I highly recommend the training and the school! It has the purpose and potential to save us all a lot of grief.

To the casual observer, Security and Law Enforcement might seem closely related, but the experienced know, they do and are to conduct business in fairly different manners.

sidestreet

Jeremiah 29 v. 11-13

we are not equal, we will never be equal, but we must be relentless.

Click to expand...

the differences between well trained security and LEOs is substantial. LEOs arrive after the fact and attempt to solve the crime. Security is generally on site to prevent an incident. Most LEO's don't know squat about security, locks, lighting, pass codes, perimeters, CCTV systems, Fire Control systems, access control.....the list goes on and on.

I doubt there are many LEOs that have 1/10 the training I do in how to protect assets, (People, buildings and inventory) but 99% of them treat me like a second class citizen when they show up.

Sadly, many don't even understand the laws they are sworn to enforce.

skidmark said:

I beg your pardon? [/church lady voice]

Being charged under local ordinance or under state law determines who bears the costs? Since when? You absolutely must provide a citation for that assertion.

Sorry for the thread drift, but that cannot be allowed to go any farther until it is cleared up.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Found that out from Sheriff Danny Diggs, York County. If they charge a person under County Code, and that person requires a public defender, and/or is convicted and incarcerated, the County bears the cost. If charges under State Code, the Commonwealth bears the cost. Of course, the charging entity gets to collect any fines assessed.

2a4all said:

Found that out from Sheriff Danny Diggs, York County. If they charge a person under County Code, and that person requires a public defender, and/or is convicted and incarcerated, the County bears the cost. If charges under State Code, the Commonwealth bears the cost. Of course, the charging entity gets to collect any fines assessed.

Click to expand...

Knowing Sheriff Diggs and his knowledge/understanding of the law, I believe you misunderstood him.

Further, saying you heard it (from Sheriff Diggs, me, User, Chuluthlu or The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster himself) is not a valid cite. Where in the Code of Virginia of 1950, as Amended, or the Virginia Administrative Code is it spelled out? I have no problem sitting here all weekend and all next week (or longer) while you either ask Sheriff Diggs for clarificatiuon and explanation or do your own legal research.

Quite frankly, I am disappointed that you would pull a "the cousin of the ex-boyfriend of the hairdresser of the mayor's secretary's babysitter's ..." as a citation. Shortening it to "Sheriff Diggs told me" still does not cut it.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

Knowing Sheriff Diggs and his knowledge/understanding of the law, I believe you misunderstood him.

Further, saying you heard it (from Sheriff Diggs, me, User, Chuluthlu or The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster himself) is not a valid cite. Where in the Code of Virginia of 1950, as Amended, or the Virginia Administrative Code is it spelled out? I have no problem sitting here all weekend and all next week (or longer) while you either ask Sheriff Diggs for clarificatiuon and explanation or do your own legal research.

Quite frankly, I am disappointed that you would pull a "the cousin of the ex-boyfriend of the hairdresser of the mayor's secretary's babysitter's ..." as a citation. Shortening it to "Sheriff Diggs told me" still does not cut it.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

He said this to the York County Board of Supervisors when explaining why his office would charge someone for an offense under state code vs local county code. Hardly a misunderstanding. I'm sure if you asked him, he'd explain it to you.