Citizen
Founder's Club Member
All of which could also have been accomplished with an attorney present.
-
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.
-
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.
Open Carry Terry Stops Legal or not?
- Thread starter darkk
- Start date
All of which could also have been accomplished with an attorney present.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Bwahahahahahahahaha!!!
He trots out a lawyer as an example of how lay citizens are supposed to be willing to talk to cops?
And, that last sentence is priceless. "There are many cases where you should not talk to police, but it is very situation dependent and not a bright line rule". (derisive laughter) So, we laymen are supposed to recognize which situation is OK to talk to police? We're supposed to figure while being questioned whether this is one of those situations where we should or shouldn't talk? We're supposed to use what? our mind-reading skills to determine whether the cop in front of us is just looking for something--anything--that can be turned into probable cause for an arrest?
Yeah, right. Even if you clean up the Blue Wall of Silence, I ain't falling for your lopsided, incomplete argument.
Even the former criminal defense attorney in the video PALO asserts to have debunked, Prof. James Duane of Regent University Law School, won't let his client talk to cops until he knows what evidence the police have. Take note of that. Its not just a matter of Prof. Duane wanting to be present. Even if present, he's not going to let his client answer questions until he knows what information the cops have, this in order to avoid making statements the cops can contradict and paint the defendant as a liar. Even the true statements of an innocent witness can be used against him if the police, through no fault of theirs, come into possession of evidence that can be used to contradict the trutful, innocent witness.
A cop who doesn't support the right to silence. A cop who willfully ignores pitfalls and dangers about talking to police when discussing it with people whose OC he supposedly supports. A cop who goes out of his way to write walls of text making himself look pro-rights. Uh-huh. Suuuuuure.
Last edited:
davidmcbeth
Banned
My experience:
Agent asks me a question on my door stoop ... I respond "Am I under arrest?" Agent: "uh, no." Me: slam the door in his/their face(s).
I've had FBI agents at my door , Treasury agents at my door ('cause I like to complain to judges about their goofy decisions and other activities) etc. .... every time I complain to a judge for example, they show up. Every time, its a slammed door in the face they get. Every time, they leave. Like I cannot call a judge or another gov't official a "name". Ooooooo .. scary stuff kids.
Cops ask questions for two reasons: 1) to gather evidence to arrest you or 2) to gather more evidence to arrest you That's it in my book.
I've had cops ask me questions after I witnessed some crime .. I just answer "Your the detective Mr. Perot, figure it out" .... I am like Schultz "I say nothing, NOTHING".
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
No.
If it has relation to my comment, I wouldn't know about it. I made that comment because it was just the obvious.
PALO commits more logical fallacies per line of text than any current member I can think of.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
already went over this...thanks for steering this thread off the rails.
there's a difference between identifying yourself and "speaking with police."
davidmcbeth
Banned
I'm Mr. Flinkerbean Wonderfluff Jr.
Hello Barfly,
Again, your opinion is lacking.
Read my first post and print out the opinions listed.
It is unconstitutional for LEO to detain a person for a legal activity. Here is paraphrased language used by the federal courts regarding this issue: If we carve out an exception in the 4th amendment for the 2nd amendment, we will effectivley eviscerate the 4th Amendment.
I was on topic. The professor's lecture is also on topic. Do not give LEO information that you are not legally required to give, no matter if it is an unlawful detention, or you are a perp, or a witness in a criminial investigation.
I am sorry that you feel the need to lash-out. Please don't hand over your DL to any cop who walks by. Let them focus on real criminals.
Please read Michigan v. Chesternutt, SCOTUS, the supremes ruled that if a citizen "feels" they are detained and can't leave the detention, they are detained. Being forced to show your papers without Probable Cause for arrest is an ulawful detention, even in Nevada.
LEO needs to be trained by citizens to only detain, arrest, and interogate people when LEO has RAS or Probable Cause.
markm
Last edited:
I posted an example in the social lounge on yet another example (earlier tonight) where a suspect who WOULD have been arrested if he didn't talk, since I had PC to arrest him and it was a DV assault and thus a MANDATORY arrest, ended up not getting arrested because he talked to me and provided reason to vitiate the PC against him and not arrest him. The ONLY thing that kept him from being arrested was his statement to me, and his pointing me to a witness as well that could corroborate his statement, which was more credible than the "victim". Perfect example of why this don't ever talk to police stuff is a ridiculous lie. It helps people all the time. In many circs, it's good advice. I had a case once where i had a defense attorney under arrest. He was smart enough to talk and his statement got him unarrested (Not booked) and when I sent the case in , it was nolle pros'd and the specific reason given was his statement presented an insurmountable burden to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He was an attorney, and smart enough to talk when under arrest, since he had a damn good defense to present. Literally scores of other examples I have seen firsthand where talking helped the person and god knows plenty of examples where it hurt them. It;'s case dependant
That aside, your points are valid. Cops need RAS to detain. It is false that being forced to show your papers w;o probable cause for arrest is unlawful . In many traffic stops for only civil infractions (not arrestable) you must provide certain info. Ditto for being a driver in a collision. Actually, the standard is if a citizen feels they are detained AND a "reasonable " person would feel that way, they are detained. It's the old reasonable person standard. Similarly, for a constructive arrest, a reasonable person would feel they are being detained the extent of an arrest (a mere detention is not a custodial arrest and requires RAS. A custodial arrest requires PC). Metric buttloads of case law on that, but in brief, in most circs cops need RAS to detain you - there are a FEW exceptions (COMMUNITY CARETAKING) but that's the general rule
davidmcbeth
Banned
Junior, you have to stop eating those paint chips!
Now, with the guy who you did not arrest 'cause he talked to you....would he not have still ended up a free man if he did not talk to you? Who cares about an arrest? I would care more about a conviction.
carolina guy
Regular Member
I will ask here as well...if there was PC for a mandatory DV arrest (WA) but the ex-boyfriend had enough corroborating "information" to indicate that he was not the aggressor, rather the ex-GF was the aggressor and he was just defending himself, why wasn't the ex-GF then arrested??
OC for ME
Regular Member
Research your own state's laws and be sure you understand what a arrest is and when it occurs.
The DV victim, who was falsely accused, was obligated to prove his innocence to avoid a arrest. Based on the RCW the falsely accused citizen is subject to arrest for each false claim made against him. If the liar makes another claim of DV where is the arrest of the liar for making a false claim?
A trained lawyer would/should know how to "talk" his way out of trouble.
we're in a state where OC has been found by at least one court to constitute RAS. so, if the courts call it that and the cops think that's what it is AND they've been getting away with various charges for failing to ID, etc...AND the goal is for an OC'er to get home safely without a trip to jail...then IMHO providing ID is a bare minimum in an OC "encounter".
you can stand your ground on that, and take what comes...we know there's very little downside to municipalities for arresting you.
brk913
Regular Member
Huh? Cite please...
carolina guy
Regular Member
Exactly...is it legal to OC in CT or not?
Rich B
Regular Member
You keep saying this as if you haven't been corrected in your error and told that the courts recently have found the exact opposite.
Not sure what your goal is, but continuing to spew erroneous information is really reprehensible. Especially when you were publicly corrected.
We all have our days I suppose...here's your "public correction":
"Reasonable suspicion requires considerably less of a showing than probable cause.” United States v. McCargo, 464 F.3d 192, 197 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). In the instant case, defendants were responding to a 911 call reporting that an individual had entered the Chili’s waiting area with an exposed firearm, and the manager was sufficiently alarmed to clear the immediate area and contact the police. Upon entering the restaurant, defendants observed that plaintiff had a holstered handgun visible on his hip. Under these circumstances, sufficient reasonable suspicion justified defendants’ investigative stop of plaintiff." Goldberg v. Glastonbury.
I'm the one who posted about US v. Black...the 4th Circuit decision...so don't trot that one out. You thought I was talking about Aloi and the interfering question.
Have some coffee.
Last edited:
Rich B
Regular Member
So you bring out the Goldberg case which was not open carry. Nice.
I'll give you a hint: There is a lot more to the Goldberg case than that one paragraph.
And another: There is a current case that is about open carry currently working its way through the Federal court.
Oh, now Goldberg wasn't about OC? Yes, technically it was about whether the PD had qualified immunity. The court found...as I stated...that an exposed firearm was RAS as a predicate finding in favor of granting QI to the police for stopping/detaining the plaintiff. So...with respect to my statement above..."at least one court found OC to be RAS" is indeed a true statement. the decision says as much. the only act ascribed to the plaintiff was OC.
Last edited: