youtube

solus · Aug 5, 2014

OC for ME said:
So, he walked up to a cop, shotgun and all, and waited for the cop to pop the question...

the young man, carrying a police scanner, digital recorder, aka phone, stopped for the LE, played twenty questions with the officer(s), and when the LE asked if he wanted to be cited, the young man said go ahead. so the young man was.

as i have expressed, numerous times, my mantra with police encounters..may i help you officer, repeated a couple of times; then, am i being detained, repeated a couple of times; then, am i free to go, repeated at least twice, then i leave the area w/o looking back.

this is what leads me to think the young man was trying to define his 15 minutes of fame, that and his other self admitted the other dozen or so encounters he has initiated.

ipse

stealthyeliminator · Aug 5, 2014

solus said:
please read my response to dario a few posts ago, as you also seem to miss the second comma and the word OR in section (a).

then please read my comment in the same post about subjectivity of the term preservation of peace..

and then read my final comment in the same post...he got a citation ~ period, he has to defend himself by either paying a fine or presenting himself in front of a judge ~ period.

the young man wasn't arrested, detained, didn't lose his shot gun, it is no more no worse than a traffic ticket. let the young man, or his caregivers run the flag up the flag pole and expend $$$$ fighting this to the ends of the earth...however, i would believe there are more important things to fall on my sword over then a class 2 misdemeanor. especially since the young man lacked the maturity, balls, or wasn't smart enough to ask am i being detained?, am i free to go?, and then continued to engage with the LE to the point the LE asked if the young man wanted to be cited for obstruction and then the young man answered YES.

as stated previously, seem he got what he wanted.

ipse

I did miss that Dario pointed out essentially what I pointed out, and I missed your response to him (I generally don't read your posts, and I'm beginning to remember why). However, I don't see what you're saying. The second comma in the section (a) is ... firefighter, emergency medical services provider

You are the guy that I constantly called a liar not too long ago, right? Well. I remember why I did that now, too...
"the young man wasn't arrested, detained, didn't lose his shot gun, it is no more no worse than a traffic ticket."
"Sir, am I being detained for a crime?" "Yes you are!" How much more clear could this be?!?!?!?!?

Not sure what you mean with your idea that some magical comma negates anything that I or Dario said, but, good luck with your shenanigans. Hope you don't ever end up trying to use poor reading comprehension as a defense in court, I don't think it'll fly.

solus · Aug 5, 2014

stealthyeliminator said:
I did miss that Dario pointed out essentially what I pointed out, and I missed your response to him (I generally don't read your posts, and I'm beginning to remember why). However, I don't see what you're saying. The second comma in the section (a) is ... firefighter, emergency medical services provider

You are the guy that I constantly called a liar not too long ago, right? Well. I remember why I did that now, too...
"the young man wasn't arrested, detained, didn't lose his shot gun, it is no more no worse than a traffic ticket."
"Sir, am I being detained for a crime?" "Yes you are!" How much more clear could this be?!?!?!?!?

Not sure what you mean with your idea that some magical comma negates anything that I or Dario said, but, good luck with your shenanigans. Hope you don't ever end up trying to use poor reading comprehension as a defense in court, I don't think it'll fly.

it isn't the magic of the the comma stealth, but rather the word OR behind it which starts a whole new statute statement in paragraph (a) which states: quote ..., or hinders the enforcement of the penal law or the preservation of the peace by a peace officer, acting under color of his or her official authority; ....unquote

it is the preservation of the peace statement, which is very very subjective, which i am sure the LE, acting under the color of their official authority, wrote the TICKET to the young man.
additionally, nowhere did i hear the young man make any type of concern about being stopped by the LEs but what i did hear on his posted video was: LE: 'do you want to be cited for obstruction ~ YES was young man's response. then he was issued a citation!!

finally, stealth, if you do not read my posts, why on earth do you start now? oh wait you didn't read the threads posts you just popped off and shot from the hip not knowing a thing of what was being discussed. your attempted reading, or lack therein, of my posts means i do not have to deal with being constantly called names by you whenever you can't discern the logic of what is being stated.

and you feel i have reading comprehension problems...

btw, you didn't mention how the texas effort is going?

ipse

stealthyeliminator · Aug 5, 2014

solus said:
it isn't the magic of the the comma stealth, but rather the word OR behind it which starts a whole new statute statement in paragraph (a) which states: quote ..., or hinders the enforcement of the penal law or the preservation of the peace by a peace officer, acting under color of his or her official authority; ....unquote

it is the preservation of the peace statement, which is very very subjective, which i am sure the LE, acting under the color of their official authority, wrote the TICKET to the young man.
additionally, nowhere did i hear the young man make any type of concern about being stopped by the LEs but what i did hear on his posted video was: LE: 'do you want to be cited for obstruction ~ YES was young man's response. then he was issued a citation!!

finally, stealth, if you do not read my posts, why on earth do you start now? oh wait you didn't read the threads posts you just popped off and shot from the hip not knowing a thing of what was being discussed. your attempted reading, or lack therein, of my posts means i do not have to deal with being constantly called names by you whenever you can't discern the logic of what is being stated.

and you feel i have reading comprehension problems...

btw, you didn't mention how the texas effort is going?

ipse

I didn't mention how it's going in Texas because it because it's off topic (and probably intended to be inflammatory). If you want to know how things are going in Texas, go back to "Stories From The States," "click Texas," "New Thread," type "How are things going in Texas?" in the Title field, "Hey all, I just wanted to drop in and see how things are going in Texas. How are they?" in the body field, Submit the new thread.

I understand the statute and don't believe the guy violated it. Let me break this down for you.

Using any of these methods:
1. Violence
2. Physical Interference
3. An obstacle
knowingly with the result of:
1. Obstructing
2. Impairing
3. Hindering
any of the following:
1. Enforcement of the penal law
2. Preservation of the peace
you are in violation.

You must use one of the methods above, to accomplish one of the results below. I've said nothing to the contrary, and therefore your supposed "correction" doesn't apply to anything I've said. I assumed that I just didn't understand what you were trying to say, but no, it was just that what you were saying didn't make any sense, per normal. Have a good one.

solus · Aug 5, 2014

stealth, i'll take a number three from the first group, from the second group it is a toss up between number one and three but i chose a number three, and number two from the third group. i think the equation looks like: 3 + 3 + 2 equals a citation for obstruction divided by court appearance.

there's that belittling and condescending attitude we have all come to expect...glad you didn't disappoint.

ipse

Dario · Aug 5, 2014

solus said:
stealth, i'll take a number three from the first group, from the second group it is a toss up between number one and three but i chose a number three, and number two from the third group. i think the equation looks like: 3 + 3 + 2 equals a citation for obstruction divided by court appearance.

there's that belittling and condescending attitude we have all come to expect...glad you didn't disappoint.

ipse

Since a citation does does not equal a conviction we'll just have to see how a judge interprets its. If I were a betting man, I'd put money on a dismissal.

stealthyeliminator · Aug 5, 2014

solus said:
stealth, i'll take a number three from the first group, from the second group it is a toss up between number one and three but i chose a number three, and number two from the third group. i think the equation looks like: 3 + 3 + 2 equals a citation for obstruction divided by court appearance.

there's that belittling and condescending attitude we have all come to expect...glad you didn't disappoint.

ipse

Yeah, that's exactly what I thought, Solus, which is why I said "Queue solos claiming that refusing to forfeit constitutionally protected rights constitutes an 'obstacle'"

'Obstacle' being option number 3 from the first set, which was your choice.

solus · Aug 5, 2014

Dario said:
Since a citation does does not equal a conviction we'll just have to see how a judge interprets its. If I were a betting man, I'd put money on a dismissal.

dario, et al., you have missed my point, the young man did not walk away from this encounter he was cited. as such he now has to either pay the fine or defend himself in front a county judicial proceeding.

personally i do not care what he is found in the proceeding as he and possibly others must take time out of their schedules to go to court or like i mentioned since it is a ticket, forgo court route and pay the fine... so he lost either way.

dario, can you take time away from work and spend a couple hours in the aurora's court house? your hourly rate for say three hours is worth what?

ipse

papa bear · Aug 5, 2014

I apologize to the forum. earlier i said that he was pleading the 5th, when he actually was pleading the 4th.

one was of self incrimination and the other was for no search of person or property.

but still not obstruction. in all i have seen of the instance, he gave no resistance

OC for ME · Aug 6, 2014

solus said:
dario, et al., you have missed my point, the young man did not walk away from this encounter he was cited. as such he now has to either pay the fine or defend himself in front a county judicial proceeding.

personally i do not care what he is found in the proceeding as he and possibly others must take time out of their schedules to go to court or like i mentioned since it is a ticket, forgo court route and pay the fine... so he lost either way.

dario, can you take time away from work and spend a couple hours in the aurora's court house? your hourly rate for say three hours is worth what?

ipse

He, like the cop, does not have to walk away. "Consensual encounter" comes to mind. If the cop had the law on his side the conversation would have been very short. The cop does not appear to have the law on his side and as such should have withdrawn form the encounter, but he did not. By the way, the cop don't need our permission to simply walk away, irony to the inth degree.

Another instance of a citizen being lawful while lawfully "OCing" and getting ding for it by the "my way" crowd.

sudden valley gunner · Aug 6, 2014

WalkingWolf said:
Besides there was no RAS, if indeed the dept admits to numerous encounters, they already knew he was of age. Sounds like polite harassment/passive aggressive. Hope they pay through the nose and the young lad adds to his college fund.

+1

OC for ME said:
He, like the cop, does not have to walk away. "Consensual encounter" comes to mind. If the cop had the law on his side the conversation would have been very short. The cop does not appear to have the law on his side and as such should have withdrawn form the encounter, but he did not. By the way, the cop don't need our permission to simply walk away, irony to the inth degree.

Another instance of a citizen being lawful while lawfully "OCing" and getting ding for it by the "my way" crowd.

+1

Cop apologist be damned!

solus · Aug 6, 2014

guess I will call Stephen and see what actually occurred and see how he is planning on moving forward on this...

hummm searching al gore's great invention...

http://thedailybanter.com/category/society/

made Denver news

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-like-youre-a-criminal-until-proven-innocent/

ipse

OC for ME · Aug 6, 2014

He asked not 45 seconds in "how old are you" and showed no suspicion toward the given answer of 18. In fact, he even followed the answer with "ok, so you can legally carry one."

If this statement is true, the cop's, then the cop had lost all RAS after this statement. I guess the cop could have changed his mind and not believe the kid, but it seems he did not do this and charged him with a "crime" not related to the kid's age...which is apparently the pretext for initiating the encounter.

This kid may be far more savvy than we give him credit for...

The outcome of any legal proceeding is not known and our guesstimates may end up being completely wrong.

OC for ME · Aug 6, 2014

OC for ME said:
If this statement is true, the cop's, then the cop had lost all RAS after this statement. I guess the cop could have changed his mind and not believe the kid, but it seems he did not do this and charged him with a "crime" not related to the kid's age...which is apparently the pretext for initiating the encounter.

This kid may be far more savvy than we give him credit for...

The outcome of any legal proceeding is not known and our guesstimates may end up being completely wrong.

Well...

As a police spokesperson said, Lohner may be able to legally open carry but if he’s refusing to cooperate with cops when they stop him, that’s a misdemeanor.

...it seems that APD will cite you where no law has been broken. Unless, of course, contempt of cop is now a misdemeanor offense.

This kid needs to set up a lawyer fund and stick it to Da Man. APD just don't know when to quit.

DocWalker · Aug 6, 2014

solus said:
nuff said...like your opinion, mine is equal to yours.

this young man stated 'go ahead cite me for obstruction' which is what the officer did.

reiterating, i hope the young man's caregivers let HIM face the judge alone and make HIM pay the fine or serve the time instead of bailing him out. 'tis part of being an adult, isn't it?

ipse

Why are you even on this webv site? You apparently don't think an 18 year old following the laws has rights.

DocWalker · Aug 6, 2014

OC for ME said:
Well......it seems that APD will cite you where no law has been broken. Unless, of course, contempt of cop is now a misdemeanor offense.

This kid needs to set up a lawyer fund and stick it to Da Man. APD just don't know when to quit.

It is called contempt of cop...."you will respect my authority" comes to mind.

Taking one step closer to a police state...

solus · Aug 6, 2014

DocWalker said:
Why are you even on this webv site? You apparently don't think an 18 year old following the laws has rights.

well hello to you docwalker...nice of you to join the discussion as well as to provide the condescending attitude, i am disappointed in your lack of expressing your great maturity this way as i have come to expect better of you when you discuss issues objectively.

BTW, can you show in which of my posts where i specifically state those sentiments?

ipse

solus · Aug 6, 2014

The Truth said:
+1

The kid broke no laws. The kid was illegally detained. There is absolutely no argument against these claims. This 'solus' character is not even arguing law. He or she is arguing his/her opinion as if it were law, and citing parts of codes to back up false claims - and as far as I know, a law must be interpreted in its entirety (I forget the Latin term...in toto?) and one cannot use portions of code out of context to prove guilt.

This is very simple logic...I really don't understand how anyone could possibly defend this illegal detainment. The 'obstruction' of what? The kid doesn't answer a question he has a legal right not to answer, so he is obstructing? USE YOUR BRAIN! There was no crime committed here.

i posted the specific Colorado statute cite so not sure how you can make your claim and my posts quantifying the statutes 'comma OR' is by English usage, begins another statute statement which in my opinion, allows the LE to cite the young man for obstruction.

the only thing i have criticized, as i have in the past and will continue to express, is the public touting of long guns to either get 15 minutes of fame or knowingly be a thorn in the police's side both under the guise of 'exercising my 2A RIGHTS."

oh ya sorry, i have also criticized the young man's engagement with LE and not having the balls to walk away...to avoid the confrontation in the first place.

the young man was asked if he wanted to be cited and he said yes so he was. end of story!

oh wait, like your statements, mine are my opinions and as such belong to me. if you have a difficult time with that concept, tis your problem and yours alone.

wish to contribute something constructive, join in.

ipse

DocWalker · Aug 6, 2014

solus said:
well hello to you docwalker...nice of you to join the discussion as well as to provide the condescending attitude, i am disappointed in your lack of expressing your great maturity this way as i have come to expect better of you when you discuss issues objectively.

BTW, can you show in which of my posts where i specifically state those sentiments?

ipse

Since typed words don't show tone or you can't see my body langange when I type I will give you a pass on your option that I was condescending. I was simply asking a question, this can be noted by the use of the "?" at the end of my sentence. It was an obvious questsion due to your previous posts were you chastise the 18 year old for daring to walk down a public street with a shotgun.

Your posts #11, #14, #20 and so on all paint the same picture. You don't agree with his lawful act, you want him to pay the fine, are ok with the LE response, you are ok with him being hassled.

(Here is another question...note the "?")

Why couldn't the cop just observe for a few minutes to see if crimes are or are about to be commited and then just called in and tell dispatch..."nothing illegal here just a citizen going about his activities"?

Dario · Aug 6, 2014

The Truth said:
"I'm through wit' DIS guy..." Jerry Callo

Yep :banghead:

youtube

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member