Thread: Monroe Police Dept - Encounter
Removed by request.
Last edited by csaunders; 04-04-2013 at 01:52 PM.
Sounds like the guy was on R-O-I-D-S
As WalkingWolf said, contact an attorney ASAP. Stuff like this has got to stop.
As you state in your post it wasn't you who was dragged outside and intimidated. The only thing I think you should do is be a good witness. I don't know if you can offer that to the guy who was abused having done nothing unlawful if you don't know him.
"Why, gentlemen, I absolutely look forward to our little meetings this way. If I may make it easier for you, I'll happily coordinate my journeys with the department so that you may meet me at whatever establishment I am on my way to. In fact, we can bypass the dispatcher entirely if you'll just give me a contact number, perhaps a cell phone? Now, I typically go to at least a half dozen places a day, so you might arrive after I've already left, but I'll do my best to keep you current.
No? Hmm... any of you guys working next week? Tuesday? Oh, see you next Tuesday* then, officer."
Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 04-02-2013 at 06:48 PM.
should have asked the cop: can I have your gun so you are happier that I am carrying today? Would have yelled "police! police!" hahaha
You handled yourself well ... if you want to go any further is up to you.
Thanks for posting this info. I live in Monroe and have carried in Wally World without this slightest notice. I will definitely increase my awareness and drop an email to our police chief concerning this type of treatment. You didn't ID the store, but I don't want to ask for info that might hamper your plans.
Last edited by RedEagle; 04-02-2013 at 08:46 PM.
Cop: "Who has the gun?"
Me: <quizzical expression combined with silence>
Also, don't forget being a witness for the defense. Find the guy and offer to testify on his behalf that you weren't "terror-ed" by the citizen. You were more terrorized by the cop charging into a peaceful situation with a drawn gun, presumably ready to shoot a peacefully armed citizen who, caught off guard, didn't react the way the cop wanted.
(And, don't nobody tell me the cop wouldn't have over-reacted and shot a peaceful OCer who didn't respond fast enough or whirled quickly to the sudden situation. The cop was already highly over-reacting.)
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.
Yes please follow up on this. If nothing else file a complaint on how the situation was handled. Sounds like there needs to be some re-education in that city that I formerly lived in. I was glad to get out of Monroe and Union County.
"I'm kinda high (or maybe low) profile around here, to hate on me is just sour grapes." - NCHeel
"Nuts" followed by "You can go straight to Hell." Jake from Jericho
I live in MOnroe and open carry a lot
I have heard from people hired on the dept that it is the most corrupt dept in the state
many hirees left for other depts
but that isnt relevant to this
I have carried in wal mart and other places several times and its just a matter of time
contact an attorney and sue sounds feasible
except that the courts are all rigged
sounds like we need a meet and greet in Monroe, and also to invite the chief and the Sargent.
Luke 22:36 ; 36Then 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.
"guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.
Officer: Who has the gun!?
Me: *looks at his drawn service weapon* ...uh, is this a trick question?
"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
Sounds like threats to continue unlawful harassment of a legal activity...I am starting to think this might need a federal civil rights suit and definitely walking around with your voice recorder running!!
If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.
"I did, officer, that man in the yellow shirt has one."
Suddenly the tense encounter is interrupted by a radio, "Officer 34, respond to a report of a man with a gun at XXby's."
"I got him, Dispatch."
"Description is he's wearing a blue shirt."
"Dispatch, subject in custody, and it's a yellow shirt."
"Negative, Officer 34, that was the previous call. ... Standby.... Respond to a report of a man with a gun at XXby's, description is a male wearing a red shirt and blue jeans."
"Dangit Dispatch, make up your mind, is it a yellow shirt, a blue one or a red shirt."
"That's correct, 34. Standby.... Respond to a call about a man with a gun, subject is described as wearing a white and red striped shirt and standing about 10 feet behind you."
"Officer down, officer down! They're everywhere! Send in reinforcements, send in everyone!"
Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 04-03-2013 at 10:24 AM.
How can you come so close to offering good advice......and then miss it by a mile?
It wasn't the OP who was intimidated? Since when is HAVING A GUN POINTED AT YOU AND FRISKED FOR NO PROBABLE CAUSE "not being intimidated"?
They BOTH were unlawfully siezed and searched! The "ONLY" thing he should do is "be a good witness"? He has the sole ability to corroborate the defense (or lawsuit) the other guy chooses to enact! AND VICE-VERSA! The OTHER GUY can attest to the officer illegally searching and detaining him should the OP choose to sue. This is GOLD! They don't know each other, aren't related, and weren't even knowlegeable of each other's presence in the store until the cop performed his illegal actions. There's no way an opposing attorney can say they "cooked this up" between them. If there is a GATTTOTP charge against the other guy, the OP can testify that THE OFFICER caused more terror than the defendant and SAVE HIS KIESTER. If there were no charges filed, the OP can testify about the illegal detention and illegal search by the officer should the other guy file suit.
Your advice to be a good witness is sound advice, but it isn't the ONLY thing he should consider doing. This is his encounter and experience, so it is entirely up to him as to what reaction he chooses. However, if I HAD A GUN CARELESSLY POINTED AT ME BY A JACKBOOTED THUG WITH A BADGE...the least I would do is file a simple FOIA request, find out who "the other guy" was, and offer him, or his attorney my sincere help in testifying on his behalf. The LEAST I would do.
If this senseless drama happened to me, I would probably do as others have said on this board and contact an attorney for my own benefit. However, this isn't my squirrel hunt, so it is entirely up to the OP whether or not having a gun stuck in his face makes him feel like preventing such occurrence in the future to some other poor OC'er who might end up on the loud end of Officer Ramrod's service weapon.
That cop, is the poster child of why I OC very little, and especially not in liberal loony land like Asheville.
It is NOT the citizens job to educate those that should know the law about the law. However as a witness I would be all over the chief of police, and looking to get this written up in the local media.
I'm guessing since the cop "threatened" the guy, he was not arrested or had his gun confiscated. Proof that this cop is unfit to be a LEO and should have his ticket pulled.
The OP was unarmed, ya know as in not OCing, and he was accosted. Nice attempt to make a attack on OC, but that is not the point of the OP. The point was he and another citizen were illegally accosted.
Originally Posted by Primus
to review what a GATTOP ("Going Armed to The Terror Of the Public") actually is in North Carolina:
According to the UNC School of Government blog:
This is a common law offense. State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 541-42 (1968); State v. Huntly, 25 N.C. 418, 418 (1843); State v. Staten, 32 N.C. App. 495, 496-97 (1977) (citing Dawson).
A person guilty of this offense
(1) arms himself or herself with an unusual and dangerous weapon
(2) for the purpose of terrifying others and
(3) goes about on public highways
(4) in a manner to cause terror to the people.
Class 1 misdemeanor. G.S. 14-3(a).
For the elements of this offense, see Dawson, 272 N.C. at 549, and Staten, 32 N.C. App. at 497.For a case in which the evidence was sufficient to establish this offense, see, for example, Dawson, 272 N.C. at 549 (armed with a carbine and four pistols, the defendant and three others drove on the public highways at night, firing bullets into a store and two homes).
In Huntly, the court held that any gun is an unusual and dangerous weapon for purposes of this offense. Huntly, 25 N.C. at 422. In that case it was argued that a gun cannot constitute an unusual weapon, “for there is scarcely a man in the community who does not own and occasionally use a gun of some sort.” Id. The court rejected that argument, concluding: “A gun is an ‘unusual weapon,’ wherewith to be armed and clad. No man amongst us carries it about with him, as one of his every day accoutrements–as a part of his dress–and never we trust will the day come when any deadly weapon will be worn or wielded in our peace loving and law-abiding State, as an appendage of manly equipment.” Id.
[NOTE: I think they missed Element (2), but it should be here]
In State v. Lanier, 71 N.C. 288, 289 (1874), the defendant was charged with going armed to the terror of the people after riding a horse, at a canter, through a courthouse. Witnesses saw no arms of any kind. The North Carolina Supreme Court “attach[ed] no importance to the fact that the defendant had no arms” stating, “we think it may be conceded that the driving or riding without arms through a court house or a crowded street at such a rate or in such a manner as to endanger the safety of the inhabitants amounts to a breach of the peace and is an indictable offence at common law.” Id. at 290.
It appears that the offense would not occur if the defendant remained on private property.
The offense of affray involves fighting in public to the terror of the people. For purposes of that offense, cases hold that if members of the public experience fear, the “to the terror of the people” element is satisfied. In re May, 357 N.C. 423, 428 (2003). In an unpublished case involving a charge of going armed to the terror of the people, the North Carolina Court of Appeals found this element satisfied where the defendant shot his gun while driving closely behind another vehicle on a public highway. State v. Toler, 716 S.E.2d 875 (N.C. App. 2011) (unpublished) (rejecting the defendant’s argument that his actions were not “to the terror of the people” where the only people involved were those in the victim’s car, and stating: “We find this to be substantial evidence that this behavior was intended to be to the terror of the people and was in fact to the terror of the people. The fact that a limited number of witnesses testified regarding Defendant’s actions does not change the character of those actions.”).
Although it is proper to enumerate the acts or threats of violence that the defendant undertakes while armed, such allegations are not required.Dawson, 272 N.C. at 549 (indictment upheld absent such allegations).
Last edited by carolina guy; 04-03-2013 at 12:14 PM. Reason: Readability
If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.
Here's my email to Chief Duncan:
From: Xxx Xxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 11:58 PM
To: Debra Duncan
Subject: Clarification please
Dear Chief Duncan,
I writing to you to inquire about your thoughts and reactions to an incident that happened today (Tues. 4/2) in Monroe. What information I received was from a forum that I frequent, so all of the particulars (i.e.- time of day, address, officers involved) are not known to me, but here is the info that I do have. The incident occured on a business property that contains a pharmacy and a "man with a gun". It is reported that a officer entered the store with gun drawn, grabbed a guy repairing a machine and frisked him before spotting a gentleman legally open carrying in the pharmacy. It was told that this man was then taken down at gun point, searched then taken outside where he was threatened with "Gattop". The man was then told that this would continue to happen and the way to stop it is to get a CHP.
Now I am not a lawyer, but when reading State v. Huntley, carrying a holstered weapon does not constitute "Gattop". I guess my questions to you are these: 1) Is this going to be the way that the Monroe Police dept works, is the dept going to continue to harass and threaten citizens, who want to exercise their rights to open carry legally under North Carolina law, with the charge of "Gattop"? 2) If this is not the way you want the dept to operate, will there be corrective training to update the department?
Looking forward to your response.
And here's her response:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your questions and concerns and for bringing this matter to my attention. I checked with the officers who responded to the call as well as the person who was “the man with the gun.” Here’s the real story: “the man with the gun” who I will refer to as J was stopped at a traffic light in Monroe when he was approached by another man who started yelling at him about his IPAD. J said that he had his son with him and he did not know the man. J then told the man to get away or he would shoot him and reached for his gun. The man got back in his car and followed J to the CVS store where there were more words exchanged between the two. J walked into the CVS with his son and without his gun. A 911 call was made, probably from the other man, who stated that he observed a man put a round in the chamber of a gun and walk into the CVS store. That call was dispatched as an emergency call. When officers arrived they spoke with J who told them what I just told you. We know that it is very likely that it occurred just as J said it did as J is known to police officers and J had also called the police department to report the behavior of the other man. At no time was J (or anyone else for that matter) threatened with anything as you allege. Nor was a repairman frisked. The officers responded appropriately. The problem with forums is that many times there is no basis for allegations, as is evident in this instance. I hope you set the record straight. Thanks again for your email.
Debra C. Duncan
Chief of Police
Monroe Police Department
218 East Franklin Street
Monroe, NC 28111
As you can see, she didn't really answer my questions, but did provide an alternate storyline.