Criminal Lawyer .com

Primus said:

Does anyone have an update on the incident or the officer? Was a suit filed? Charges etc et?

Click to expand...

I did some research and here are a few things I found out...

http://personalliberty.com/2013/02/.../?post_id=100001285175729_529027007120533#_=_

FUQ

Three years after a Citrus County sheriff’s deputy threatened to shoot a compliant concealed carry license holder in the back for legally carrying a weapon, the deputy is now on administrative leave — which means a paid vacation — while his actions are reviewed. The review came only after a video of the arrest went viral on YouTube in January.

Click to expand...

790.053 Open carrying of weapons.—

(1) Except as otherwise provided by law and in subsection (2), it is unlawful for any person to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm or electric weapon or device. It is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.
(2) A person may openly carry, for purposes of lawful self-defense:
(a) A self-defense chemical spray.
(b) A nonlethal stun gun or dart-firing stun gun or other nonlethal electric weapon or device that is designed solely for defensive purposes.
(3) Any person violating this section commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/07/fed...rrest-of-gun-owner-viral-video/#axzz2t6IJmdwV

FUQ

Today Florida Carry has filed a federal complaint alleging deprivation of civil rights under color of law with the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida over an incident which was captured on dashcam video, which subsequently went viral on the internet.

Click to expand...

Mr. Smith offered no resistance, complying fully with the officer’s orders, and informing the officer that he was a lawfully licensed concealed carrier. Ignoring Mr. Smith’s statement, Deputy Cox continued shouting at Mr. Smith, ordering him face down on the ground and cuffing him. Mr. Smith was arrested and charged with open carry of a firearm, a misdemeanor violation of Florida Statutes, however charges were later dropped. A complaint was filed with the Citrus County Sheriff’s Department against Deputy Cox, however due to a technicality, the complaint was dismissed and no disciplinary action against the deputy was taken.

Click to expand...

A debate over the situation.

http://www.linkedin.com/groups/How-would-you-advise-this-65207.S.211612742

And Florida law does not require one to voluntarily disclose that one is in possession of a firearm and must only provide CCW or CCF license upon demand. Meaning that the citizen in the video did nothing unlawful. The officer did not ask him if he had a license or if he had a firearm. The firearm was briefly exposed when the citizen bent over into his vehicle to obtain the documents that the officer requested.

Primus said:

<snip> Things like exclusionary rules/ fruits of a poisonous tree are all designed to act as checks on us. <snip>

Click to expand...

After the violation of rights, cops know this and count on this.

Primus said:

<snip> Finally when I refer to safety of officer and citizen and being able to go home I mean exactly that. Living another day. I understand citizens go through quite the process. I've been there myself. But I'm referring to been if they are arrested they will be out on bail or after arraignment and alive to fight the battle in court. That is important to me. Safety of all involved.

Click to expand...

Again, the citizen must seek redress for unlawful behavior after being violated.

Primus said:

I never said a word about violating anyone's constitution all rights. And again.... everyone focuses on the Leo part but forgets its for the citizens safety too. <snip>

Click to expand...

You do not need to "say a word" about violating a citizen's rights. Your singular focus on the violated citizen "seeking his day in court" speaks volumes. You fail to see the dichotomy, A restrained citizen is never safe, only restrained. Your continued reliance on this false premise is troubling. You, a cop, violate the right of a citizen to protect themselves when you restrain them. You also violate the right of the citizen to defend themselves when you remove them from their vehicle.

Dave_pro2a said:

Maybe Primus thinks "Cussing sounds so professional."

Or wait, maybe he thinks "threatening to shoot someone in the back sounds so professional."

Click to expand...

Primus sees value in a cop using curse words as a part of he doing his job. Primus has never, to my knowledge, stated that he condones such acts by those cops who threaten to shoot a citizen during a "routine" traffic stop. He has not stated that he would work to have such a cop removed from LE either. Could his not being proactive to remove such a cop be considered condoning? By some folks, I'm sure, I do not. He is just a cop who wants to keep his job so he will not rock the boat.

Grim_Night said:

I did some research and here are a few things I found out...

http://personalliberty.com/2013/02/.../?post_id=100001285175729_529027007120533#_=_

FUQ



790.053 Open carrying of weapons.—

(1) Except as otherwise provided by law and in subsection (2), it is unlawful for any person to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm or electric weapon or device. It is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.
(2) A person may openly carry, for purposes of lawful self-defense:
(a) A self-defense chemical spray.
(b) A nonlethal stun gun or dart-firing stun gun or other nonlethal electric weapon or device that is designed solely for defensive purposes.
(3) Any person violating this section commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/07/fed...rrest-of-gun-owner-viral-video/#axzz2t6IJmdwV

FUQ





A debate over the situation.

http://www.linkedin.com/groups/How-would-you-advise-this-65207.S.211612742

And Florida law does not require one to voluntarily disclose that one is in possession of a firearm and must only provide CCW or CCF license upon demand. Meaning that the citizen in the video did nothing unlawful. The officer did not ask him if he had a license or if he had a firearm. The firearm was briefly exposed when the citizen bent over into his vehicle to obtain the documents that the officer requested.

Click to expand...

Regaldo vs State supports that premise.

sudden valley gunner said:

Regaldo vs State supports that premise.

Click to expand...

There's a reason I changed my field of study at school to paralegal. I seem to be really good at the research stuff.

Grim_Night said:

There's a reason I changed my field of study at school to paralegal. I seem to be really good at the research stuff.

Click to expand...

Right on! It's great to recognize a talent and be able to pursue it I wish you luck. Don't be surprised if I hit you up for research help now and then.

Primus said:

SNIPPED

So now here's a question. What does that video prove? That there is a ****** bag cop in Florida? Ok. Got it. I'll make sure I avoid that county too. Does anyone have an update on the incident or the officer? Was a suit filed? Charges etc et?

I'm sure there are dozens of other videos like this on the internet. What's the point?


Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

What does that video prove? I think I covered that in the post that included the video. I'll post it again in an attempt to help you see where your cherry picking interferes with your ability to follow threads. The below in bold is the "point" you inquire about:

Fuller Malarkey said:

Great story. Too bad nothing substantiates it. While you paint a picture of puppies and rainbows and throwing a football to a project kid then end your shift with three verses of Kumbaya with the swell fellas down at the FOP club house, we are still very much faced with the reality our next stop could go this direction: WARNING: NSFW AUDIO [police belligerence and profanity]

snipped video

Click to expand...

You offer up an unsubstantiated tale of a mythical police officer / domestic terrorist commando with an internet handle of Primus, who works in an unidentified city doing unsubstantiated things, claiming to be the poster child for upholding and respecting constitutional rights. Without any substantiation, your post is nothing more than a fictional depiction. The video shows the facts. Reality. One can not claim any sense of situational awareness when they are deluded with fantasy. I believe most here prefer to deal in reality over fictional tales of fantasy. Unless it involves a VW microbus loaded with nympho pro football cheerleaders. That's acceptable because cheerleaders rarely violate our rights, or threaten to "shoot us in the f_____ back" for engaging in our rights.

Click to expand...

Primus said:

........They start doing the Irish jig and hell be out for a quick frisk.......

Click to expand...

Are you saying that if I dance in public you will feel me up? does not sound like fun.

Nightmare said:

Unfortunately I will spend the month of March in Citrus County. I'm thinking of working on a Florida permit just for entertainment while there. A friend called Florida God's waiting-room .

Click to expand...

I grew up in the farmland of south jersey. Everyones fantasy was to retire to florida. Same with those from philly and new york. Gods waiting room, thats still funny.

MSG Laigaie said:

Are you saying that if I dance in public you will feel me up? does not sound like fun.



I grew up in the farmland of south jersey. Everyones fantasy was to retire to florida. Same with those from philly and new york. Gods waiting room, thats still funny.

Click to expand...

Lol maybe depends on what your wearing and what the song is. Its ok I tip well.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Dave_pro2a said:

Maybe Primus thinks "Cussing sounds so professional."

Or wait, maybe he thinks "threatening to shoot someone in the back sounds so professional."

Click to expand...

Now actually our boy Primus has covered that:

"Verbal "judo" has a time and a place. There's a time place person to use foul language or raised voice and there's a time place to use sir/ma'am please thank you in a soft voice."~Primus, "Pulled by a policeman, post #138

The sheep should not question the bite of the sheep dog. The sacrificial sheep / citizen is a small price to pay for all the sheep dogs do for us.

Shame on us for our lack of gratitude. :lol:

Fuller Malarkey said:

Now actually our boy Primus has covered that:

"Verbal "judo" has a time and a place. There's a time place person to use foul language or raised voice and there's a time place to use sir/ma'am please thank you in a soft voice."~Primus, "Pulled by a policeman, post #138

The sheep should not question the bite of the sheep dog. The sacrificial sheep / citizen is a small price to pay for all the sheep dogs do for us.

Shame on us for our lack of gratitude. :lol:

Click to expand...

Thank you for the clarification brother. It must have literally hurt to not distort something for once.

Except the last part of course. Can't resist in being a drama queen.... " ohh sheep dogs... ohhh sheep dogs shown their teeth".

The usual appeal to emotion intended to rile the troops up.

Finally I stand by what I said. There is a time and place for foul language.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Primus said:

So now here's a question. What does that video prove? [Snipped]

I'm sure there are dozens of other videos like this on the internet. What's the point?

Click to expand...

The point is the whole thing was done in the name of "officer safety," as were the dozens of other similar videos and thousands of similar incidents like this around the country. I don't know what the outcome was on this particular one, but I wouldn't consider it a stretch to guess his supervisors determined he reliedon his training and acted appropriately in dealing with an armed and potentially dangerous suspect. Officer safety strikes again.

509rifas said:

The point is the whole thing was done in the name of "officer safety," as were the dozens of other similar videos and thousands of similar incidents like this around the country. I don't know what the outcome was on this particular one, but I wouldn't consider it a stretch to guess his supervisors determined he reliedon his training and acted appropriately in dealing with an armed and potentially dangerous suspect. Officer safety strikes again.

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. An idiot with a badge strikes again. Officer safety is a valid and real thing. If that was his excuse for that crap show then it was exactly that an excuse for his fail.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Primus said:

I respectfully disagree. An idiot with a badge strikes again. Officer safety is a valid and real thing. If that was his excuse for that crap show then it was exactly that an excuse for his fail.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Officer safety is real like Congress' constitutional power to regulate commerce is real. Sure it's real, but most of the time it is a pretext to overstep their authority.
The idiot with the badge in the video was able to do that under the guise of officer safety. Yes he was being a dick and acting like he shouldn't have, but officer safety. Unless some repercussions occur, this will continue to be a routine occurence, officer safety.
Until this type of action results in discipline at the minimum for the belligerents, and perhaps working towards getting officer safety to actually even be about offier safety, I would expect you to at least understand the animosity towards claims of officer safety many people here feel.

It is my personal opine that foul language, profanity, inappropriate, whatever, is basically a lack of vocabulary. Command voice is just that. When an individual gets profane with me I lose all respect for anything else they may have to say. YMMV

509rifas said:

Officer safety is real like Congress' constitutional power to regulate commerce is real. Sure it's real, but most of the time it is a pretext to overstep their authority.
The idiot with the badge in the video was able to do that under the guise of officer safety. Yes he was being a dick and acting like he shouldn't have, but officer safety. Unless some repercussions occur, this will continue to be a routine occurence, officer safety.
Until this type of action results in discipline at the minimum for the belligerents, and perhaps working towards getting officer safety to actually even be about offier safety, I would expect you to at least understand the animosity towards claims of officer safety many people here feel.

Click to expand...

Again.. his stupid actions don't degrade the premise of officer safety. He should have and hopefully was disciplined at the very least if not fired.

I personally don't understand "animosity" towards anyone or anything. I didn't yell at anyone and say I'm going to shoot them in the back so why animosity towards me? Not saying just you or even you at all.

I get the abuses but NO it doesn't justify animosity on any level. I've had many citizens try to do me harm. Is it ok if I have animosity towards you and everyone else for that? Can I lay their dumb mistakes at your feet? That's his the us/then mentality works right?

Save the animosity as you call it for the dude in the video. Save it for the dude in the articles and the news papers and the 5 o clock news. I'm not in any of those so your animosity is wasted on guys like myself.

To be brutally honest, if I cares enough and took offense to peoples actions it would CREATE animosity towards yourself and others on here. Should I hate all open carriers because a few on here are idiots? Should I hate all gun owners because a FEW do actually break the law?

I vote no. Maybe I'm old school but I subscribe to respect all until they give you a reason not to. Not "oh they do this for a living so have animosity to them or their job".

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

I didn't say the animosity was towards you Primus, it is towards the routine false clam of officer safety that are used to infringe on rights on a regular basis. I didn't say you do that, bit it's done regularly, any civilian who has been detained can attest to that. Usually (though not by law in WA if I recall correctly) there doesn't need to be even an articulable reason to implement "officer safety" searches ad seizures, there is a sort of presumption that the civilian is dangerous without a reason to think so.
Though I believe in WA there has to be individualized suspicion to believe someone is armed and dangerous to justify the officer safety patdown. I don't know if that's been followed much, but that's WA law.

509rifas said:

I didn't say the animosity was towards you Primus, it is towards the routine false clam of officer safety that are used to infringe on rights on a regular basis. I didn't say you do that, bit it's done regularly, any civilian who has been detained can attest to that. Usually (though not by law in WA if I recall correctly) there doesn't need to be even an articulable reason to implement "officer safety" searches ad seizures, there is a sort of presumption that the civilian is dangerous without a reason to think so.
Though I believe in WA there has to be individualized suspicion to believe someone is armed and dangerous to justify the officer safety patdown. I don't know if that's been followed much, but that's WA law.

Click to expand...

I understand. No offense was meant toward you any of my statements.

MA law is actually pretty clear we need some reason to issue an exit order and start pat frisking people. There's been plenty if case built up describing prior knowledge, furitive movement, etc. To justify exit orders and pat frisks of cars.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Primus said:

I understand. No offense was meant toward you any of my statements.

MA law is actually pretty clear we need some reason to issue an exit order and start pat frisking people. There's been plenty if case built up describing prior knowledge, furitive movement, etc. To justify exit orders and pat frisks of cars.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Case law eroding constitutional restrictions isn't law at all.