• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

OC Video: Have you guys seen this? OMG what a violation of this guy's rights!

Ron_O

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2014
Messages
109
Location
Las Vegas
911 operator takes a MWAG call and assures the caller that it's perfectly legal to OC. LEO's are dispatched and man is held on the ground at gunpoint, disarmed, and ultimately released.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLmrTENZwDA

[video=youtube;wLmrTENZwDA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLmrTENZwDA[/video]
 
Last edited:

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
I don't even want to watch it. Reading the complaint transcript. Unbelievable. I hope he bankrupts the city over this.
 

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2014
Messages
827
Location
Seattle WA

Officer William Moe drew his service pistol and aimed it at Deffert as he approached, the lawsuit said. Moe ordered Deffert to the ground, on his stomach, and handcuffed him behind his back. The officer then removed Deffert’s gun from the holster.

Well thats making threats to kill followed by theft. I'd be asking the MI self defence statutes. That behavior is totally unacceptable and Deberry v US is clear. The officer had no business even stopping him on the sole account of him bearing arms. I'm hoping the officer in question was fired at the very least and hopefully in jail for his threats to kill.
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
If this happened to any of you guys, would you not demand that the officer lower his weapon? I would not be inclined to flat out submit. I'd definitely keep my hands up and would not make any sudden moves, and I'm sure I'd be taken down, but where is the fine line between submitting to proper authority and having a right to defend yourself against lethal force?

It's been case-law backed that in an OC state you cannot be detained legally unless there is reasonable and articulable suspicion that a crime is being committed or will be committed.

http://www.fedagent.com/case-law-up...ysis-of-the-free-to-leave-standard-of-seizure
 

Maverick9

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Mid-atlantic
If this happened to any of you guys, would you not demand that the officer lower his weapon? I would not be inclined to flat out submit. I'd definitely keep my hands up and would not make any sudden moves, and I'm sure I'd be taken down, but where is the fine line between submitting to proper authority and having a right to defend yourself against lethal force?

It's been case-law backed that in an OC state you cannot be detained legally unless there is reasonable and articulable suspicion that a crime is being committed or will be committed.

http://www.fedagent.com/case-law-up...ysis-of-the-free-to-leave-standard-of-seizure

Uh, no. Comply. Win in court.
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
That's 4CA (in NC, SC, VA, MD, WV) moot in Nevada and in Michigan the incident jurisdiction.

One does not argue PC/RAS on the street or at the point of a gun. Cops lie.

Gotcha... currently searching for applicable case law then.

Sorry for the false claim.

As for arguing RAS, couldn't it be argued on site in 4CA?
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Gotcha... currently searching for applicable case law then.

Sorry for the false claim.

As for arguing RAS, couldn't it be argued on site in 4CA?

Argue to what extent? The officer doesn't even have to tell you anything at that point.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Argue to what extent? The officer doesn't even have to tell you anything at that point.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Depends on the state. But he does have to explain it to a judge and jury. Hopefully creepy rectal crevices like this eventually end up in jail playing pick up the soap. I have no tolerance for law breakers whether they wear a badge or not. FILTH is what they are.
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
Uh, no. Comply. Win in court.

Doesn't it suck just a little bit that it has to be this way? Comply, give up all your rights and liberty, probably have your gun confiscated, spend inordinate amounts of cash to retain a lawyer, and hope for the best. 'Murcuh! What about poor people?

I'm just asking my somewhat ignorant questions to get some dialogue going. I shall sacrifice my ego for the cause of edumacashun.

Upon doing a little more research,

"See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22 (1968); People v. Jenkins, 691 N.W.2d 759, 764 (Mich. 2005); People v. Custer, 630 N.W.2d 870, 876 (Mich. 2001).

Note that in Michigan, the Michigan State Police have issued a legal update that clearly states that the open carry of a firearm is not a crime. Michigan also does not have a stop and ID law, meaning that the officer cannot stop someone and demand identification without reasonable suspicion for a crime."

cite: http://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/2013/07/16/royal-oaks-police-harass-open-carrier/
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Will you provide citations to exemplar jurisdictions pro and con, please?
When I worked in Illinois we were required by every dept I worked in to notify the person why they were stopped or arrested. This was also taught at the ISP academy, they never referenced law or case law, just do it.

Other states I do not know, but the whole meaning of the word articulate would imply that a officer would be able to articulate.

Let's not forget Indiana where people can legally resist a unlawful arrest, which would indicate a person had to know why they were being arrested or stopped.

It just makes sense and it is poor police work to hassle people without explaining why.
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
When I worked in Illinois we were required by every dept I worked in to notify the person why they were stopped or arrested. This was also taught at the ISP academy, they never referenced law or case law, just do it.

Other states I do not know, but the whole meaning of the word articulate would imply that a officer would be able to articulate.

Let's not forget Indiana where people can legally resist a unlawful arrest, which would indicate a person had to know why they were being arrested or stopped.

It just makes sense and it is poor police work to hassle people without explaining why.

Technically, a cop does not have to articulate his reason on the spot. But I would never hand my gun over when I know I've done nothing wrong - even asking for it implies that they want an advantage & possibly a desire to shoot. The 2nd amendment means nothing if they can take your gun away.

I had 1 cop ask for my gun. I said no. Oddly enough, he did not go crazy but, since I was violating any law, just left.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Technically, a cop does not have to articulate his reason on the spot. But I would never hand my gun over when I know I've done nothing wrong - even asking for it implies that they want an advantage & possibly a desire to shoot. The 2nd amendment means nothing if they can take your gun away.

I had 1 cop ask for my gun. I said no. Oddly enough, he did not go crazy but, since I was violating any law, just left.

He has to have articulate suspicion on the spot or the stop is not legal. It can argued later whether he did or not, but he must have it. IMO if a officer cannot articulate it when asked he does not have it. In Indiana at least resisting would be legal.
 

The Truth

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
1,972
Location
Henrico
Thank you for the captions. I looked at the linked blog but saw no URL to 'Custer' or 'Jenkins', where did you read the cases, please?

In my opinion, People vs. Jenkins is weak, but again I'm not a lawyer.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/20051450691NW2d759_11373.xml/PEOPLE v. JENKINS

People vs. Custer is maybe less relevant, but stronger in my opinion.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/20011500630NW2d870_11488.xml/PEOPLE v. CUSTER

I still need to double and triple-read these again to fully understand though, but here are the links.
 

twoskinsonemanns

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
2,326
Location
WV
Disgusting. I wish he would have tried to defend himself as he was being kidnapped and humiliated by that thug.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
He has to have articulate suspicion on the spot or the stop is not legal. It can argued later whether he did or not, but he must have it. IMO if a officer cannot articulate it when asked he does not have it. In Indiana at least resisting would be legal.

It behooves the officer to be able to articulate in court the RAS he claims to have had at the time he detained/arrested the plaintiff. I am not aware of any court ruling that mandates that he articulate the RAS on the spot at the time he effects the detention/arrest. There may be policy within a specific LEA for the officer to state his RAS at the time he effects a detention/arrest, athough I am more of the opinion that the requirement is to state in general terms the violation you are being detained/arrested for. ("You are under arrest for grand larceny, auto" does nothing to articulate the reassonable suspicion the officer had that you had in fact stolen an automobile.) See WalkingWolf's post on that - he never said he was required to state the RAS. It's technical/legalistic language all about what the meaning of "is" is.

IOW, the officer can use the time between when he detains/arrests you and when he writes out his first report to come up with RAS. It is nice to believe that it is only a few cops that need that time to come up with RAS.

stay safe.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Pretty much, Terry V Ohio they must have RAS, the ruling does not spell out whether they articulate it at the time, never the less they still must have it. If they find RAS later and they are caught they may blow their case a it may cost them some bucks. A illegal arrest is a illegal arrest.

Clearly in this case the police do not have RAS, the dispatcher admits to the caller that there is no RAS, yet the dispatcher inserts the RAS. The officers did not observe and acted solely on a second hand claim, which can be fatal. Primus seems to think in this case that a officer can pretend to have RAS making it legal. Hopefully his dept has a huge amount of funds to cover him.

The officers exceeded their authority and the dispatcher lied. At the very least all should be fired, if it had resulted in a fatality or injury all should be prosecuted. I do not advocate jail house rape, but then it is out of my control. I do think it is a fitting end to the butt of a situation such as this. Pun intended.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Pretty much, Terry V Ohio they must have RAS, the ruling does not spell out whether they articulate it at the time, never the less they still must have it. If they find RAS later and they are caught they may blow their case a it may cost them some bucks. A illegal arrest is a illegal arrest.

Clearly in this case the police do not have RAS, the dispatcher admits to the caller that there is no RAS, yet the dispatcher inserts the RAS. The officers did not observe and acted solely on a second hand claim, which can be fatal. Primus seems to think in this case that a officer can pretend to have RAS making it legal. Hopefully his dept has a huge amount of funds to cover him.

The officers exceeded their authority and the dispatcher lied. At the very least all should be fired, if it had resulted in a fatality or injury all should be prosecuted. I do not advocate jail house rape, but then it is out of my control. I do think it is a fitting end to the butt of a situation such as this. Pun intended.

Your fascination with jail house rape is kind if disturbing... But each to his own. It is a free country.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Your fascination with jail house rape is kind if disturbing... But each to his own. It is a free country.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

I think people who screw with people deserve the same treatment in return. I find rouge police officers a embarrassment and take their actions as a personal insult to decent honest police officers. I believe anybody who makes excuses for illegal behavior, let alone government agents are just as bad as the rouge agents.

An eye for and eye.
 
Top