Fergurson

The Truth · Dec 16, 2014

I think the point is, who cares? It's davidmcbeth. Let's not get yet another Ferguson thread shut down because of senseless bickering.

On second thought shut it down and let's start one that doesn't read, "Fergerson." Makes me

every time.

utbagpiper · Dec 16, 2014

OC for ME said:
Where is it written into your state's laws that your vehicle must be in park after being detained on the side of the road by a cop? In MO I can find no such legal burden placed on the detained citizen. Where does a cop in your state derive the authority that makes that request a lawful order?

Can you find me the statute that allows a cop to take possession of your gun while you are detained? In most States probably not. But in the absence of a law prohibiting it, once a "lawful" detention is made, how many courts have not upheld the lawful ability of a cop to take possession of your gun for his safety?

Would the courts uphold, under similar grounds, an order to put the car in park (or into gear if a manual), and then turn it off? I don't know. I fail to see any benefit to pressing that issue. My goal with traffic stops is to avoid them. And if they can't be avoided, to end them as quickly and uneventfully as possible without getting myself incriminated, injured, nor killed. The side of the road is a lousy place to sort out differences of opinion on law, rights, etc. That is much better left to offices and court rooms where nobody gets to claim they felt their lives were in danger.

WalkingWolf said:
At least in Virginia shooting in the back could result in a Criminal conviction.

I'm suddenly reminded of something my old driver's ed teacher said so many years ago about "being dead right."

Frankly, some of these discussions about being difficult with cops on the street remind me of the silly irony of some people who oppose guns. You know the type. The guy who is convinced that all gun owners are crazy rednecks just itching for a chance to go postal. And so what does this kind of guy do? He feels compelled to get into the face of any OCer he happens to see. He claims all gun owners are too dangerous to be allowed to own guns, but he has no compunction about annoying or insulting a man with a gun on his hip?!?!!?

If a generally good cop is just doing his job and making some minor mistakes about my rights or the limits of his authority, I don't think he deserves grief on the side of the road. Nor do I think that the best way to really correct the problem. Short of endangering me, he will get compliance. And then I will have a chat with his superiors as necessary to correct the situations not just from him, but from the entire department.

On the other hand, if some rogue cop, looking to kill the next guy who annoys him is violating my rights, I'm not sure how me pushing him to kill me is in my best interest either. Again, a rapid and peaceful conclusion to the traffic stop or other interaction seems the best way for me to go home that night. The place to correct grossly illegal conduct seems to be in his commanding officer's office, the court room, or maybe even the legislature. Unless things are so bad that I have to decide to draw my firearm in self defense...which extreme case I don't even care to discuss on a board such as this.

I carry a gun to help me go home safely each evening. Needlessly provoking a cop on the side of a road seems counter-productive to my overarching goal of going home in one piece to my family. I suppose if there were not other, more effective methods of recourse available the discussion might be different. But with small cameras so available, traffic stops don't even need to be a "he said, she said" these days.

But if someone really figures generally good cops need grief on the side of the road for not being perfect, or that it is safe to provoke dangerous, rogue cops, have a ball. I think there some real virtue if I'm around to make sure both sides of the story get told in court.

Charles

Logan 5 · Dec 16, 2014

MSG Laigaie said:
“You cannot resist arrest,” Kerik states.

“If Eric Garner did not resist arrest, the outcome of this case would have been very different. He wouldn’t be dead today… Regardless of what the arrest was for, the officers don’t have the ability to say, ‘Well, this is a minor arrest, so we’re just going to ignore you.'”

Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306.
John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529.
Housh v. People, 75 111. 491.
State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452.
State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245.
Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349.
State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447.
State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.
Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80.
Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I.
Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75.
Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

“One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

OC for ME · Dec 16, 2014

Primus said:
What? ...

I provided the statute that requires a cop to provide his authority. Since a detention and a arrest are the same under that statute, in the plain reading of that statute, your experience in MA shows your premise to be false.

utbagpiper said:
Can you find me the statute that allows a cop to take possession of your gun while you are detained? ...Charles

The lawfulness of a order will only be determined after the fact. I contend that a cop must be held to account for even the most trivial of abuses of his authority. If it takes a judge to hold him to account then so be it. As I stated to Primus; "I'm wondering what having extracted from my vehicle has to do with a burned out tail light."

Why must we perpetuate this myth that cops can protect us when they cannot, except in the most fortunate of coincidences, ever protect us.

I agree, the side of the road is not the proper venue to debate any issue with a cop.

WalkingWolf · Dec 16, 2014

utbagpiper said:
Can you find me the statute that allows a cop to take possession of your gun while you are detained? In most States probably not. But in the absence of a law prohibiting it, once a "lawful" detention is made, how many courts have not upheld the lawful ability of a cop to take possession of your gun for his safety?

Would the courts uphold, under similar grounds, an order to put the car in park (or into gear if a manual), and then turn it off? I don't know. I fail to see any benefit to pressing that issue. My goal with traffic stops is to avoid them. And if they can't be avoided, to end them as quickly and uneventfully as possible without getting myself incriminated, injured, nor killed. The side of the road is a lousy place to sort out differences of opinion on law, rights, etc. That is much better left to offices and court rooms where nobody gets to claim they felt their lives were in danger.

I'm suddenly reminded of something my old driver's ed teacher said so many years ago about "being dead right."

Frankly, some of these discussions about being difficult with cops on the street remind me of the silly irony of some people who oppose guns. You know the type. The guy who is convinced that all gun owners are crazy rednecks just itching for a chance to go postal. And so what does this kind of guy do? He feels compelled to get into the face of any OCer he happens to see. He claims all gun owners are too dangerous to be allowed to own guns, but he has no compunction about annoying or insulting a man with a gun on his hip?!?!!?

If a generally good cop is just doing his job and making some minor mistakes about my rights or the limits of his authority, I don't think he deserves grief on the side of the road. Nor do I think that the best way to really correct the problem. Short of endangering me, he will get compliance. And then I will have a chat with his superiors as necessary to correct the situations not just from him, but from the entire department.

On the other hand, if some rogue cop, looking to kill the next guy who annoys him is violating my rights, I'm not sure how me pushing him to kill me is in my best interest either. Again, a rapid and peaceful conclusion to the traffic stop or other interaction seems the best way for me to go home that night. The place to correct grossly illegal conduct seems to be in his commanding officer's office, the court room, or maybe even the legislature. Unless things are so bad that I have to decide to draw my firearm in self defense...which extreme case I don't even care to discuss on a board such as this.

I carry a gun to help me go home safely each evening. Needlessly provoking a cop on the side of a road seems counter-productive to my overarching goal of going home in one piece to my family. I suppose if there were not other, more effective methods of recourse available the discussion might be different. But with small cameras so available, traffic stops don't even need to be a "he said, she said" these days.

But if someone really figures generally good cops need grief on the side of the road for not being perfect, or that it is safe to provoke dangerous, rogue cops, have a ball. I think there some real virtue if I'm around to make sure both sides of the story get told in court.

Charles

Some people are sheep, and some are not. You sound like some that tells women being raped to submit.

utbagpiper · Dec 20, 2014

WalkingWolf said:
Some people are sheep, and some are not. You sound like some that tells women being raped to submit.

I find to this be personally insulting and without any substantiation.

Abuse report has been submitted.

Charles

J_dazzle23 · Dec 20, 2014

WalkingWolf said:
Some people are sheep, and some are not. You sound like some that tells women being raped to submit.

LOL HARD at comparing complying with an officer of the law to submitting to a rape.

I'm all for not giving up my rights voluntarily, but I would rather be illegally detained, disarmed, and go to court and retire wealthy than fight it out with a cop on the side of the road thinking that is gonna be the place where I'm gonna have the upper hand.

Obviously there is a line that if crossed will change my mind on that, but seriously....

Compliance with LEO=submission to a rape? That's rich.

davidmcbeth · Dec 20, 2014

J_dazzle23 said:
<snip>.

I'm all for not giving up my rights voluntarily, but I would rather be illegally detained, disarmed, and go to court and retire wealthy than fight it out with a cop on the side of the road thinking that is gonna be the place where I'm gonna have the upper hand.
.

I do not allow any gov't official to violate any right. Wherever, whenever. The upper hand is with the one who is correct IMO.

I have never seen a cop who has violated a right of mine really do anything more than take a good tongue-lashing on the spot; they know when they violated a right and they are in the wrong ~ they want to go home and are not willing to jeopardize that just to prove that they can violate a right when confronted with a person willing to go head to head. Even with 5 cops around, no one is willing to be the first to test the resolve of a citizen who is willing to defend himself.

I really don't recall any traffic stop that a cop tried to violate a right. The last occurrence I recall was in this October , was at my state capitol bldg when a cop came up to me and told me to quit complaining about some gov't activity ... I chewed him out for trying to limit my 1st amendment right .. he threatened to arrest me and I suggested that he try. He walked away, as they always do. I'm getting the video of this encounter. Oh, and while I was complaining about gov't activity I was doing it "nicely"; when the cop tried to get me to stop I was not nice to him at all...there is no requirement for a citizen complaining to be nice. One cannot overtly threaten a person but a person can make it known that he will not go "quietly".

And to disarm? Never gonna happen with me. Never. The 2nd amendment means nothing if a gov't official can just ask you to hand him your arms.

How far a person is willing to defend his rights I guess is up to himself. If we all have the same line in the sand as me though, I doubt very many violations/attempts of our rights would actually happen. And the world would be a happier place.

J_dazzle23 · Dec 20, 2014

davidmcbeth said:
I do not allow any gov't official to violate any right. Wherever, whenever. The upper hand is with the one who is correct IMO.

I have never seen a cop who has violated a right of mine really do anything more than take a good tongue-lashing on the spot; they know when they violated a right and they are in the wrong ~ they want to go home and are not willing to jeopardize that just to prove that they can violate a right when confronted with a person willing to go head to head. Even with 5 cops around, no one is willing to be the first to test the resolve of a citizen who is willing to defend himself.

I really don't recall any traffic stop that a cop tried to violate a right. The last occurrence I recall was in this October , was at my state capitol bldg when a cop came up to me and told me to quit complaining about some gov't activity ... I chewed him out for trying to limit my 1st amendment right .. he threatened to arrest me and I suggested that he try. He walked away, as they always do. I'm getting the video of this encounter. Oh, and while I was complaining about gov't activity I was doing it "nicely"; when the cop tried to get me to stop I was not nice to him at all...there is no requirement for a citizen complaining to be nice. One cannot overtly threaten a person but a person can make it known that he will not go "quietly".

And to disarm? Never gonna happen with me. Never. The 2nd amendment means nothing if a gov't official can just ask you to hand him your arms.

How far a person is willing to defend his rights I guess is up to himself. If we all have the same line in the sand as me though, I doubt very many violations/attempts of our rights would actually happen. And the world would be a happier place.

I like your thought process, and I agree with it in theory. I have just seen enough people tased/shot when they "threatened the officer" when they were possibly getting their rights infringed upon.

May be a good idea to comply with a request, and fight it in court the next day.

Of course, that has to be a judgement call. But I do believe there has been a time/ place where if this would have been the action taken, the individual would still be alive today.

On the other hand, a good tongue lashing is, at times, just what the Dr ordered.

OC for ME · Dec 21, 2014

Take a serious butt whoopin, serious bodily injury, or death and hope to get a check...sounds like a even trade to me.

cloudcroft · Dec 21, 2014

Well, that's the only way *I* can see getting the $$ to pay cash for that condo in Hawaii. And since the HOA fees are just over $1K/month, at least the place would be paid for, so no mortgage pay't to worry about.

...all while I'm recovering from the "serious butt whoopin, serious bodily injury" you mention! And at least I'd be doing so in a sunny "paradise" with cooling trade winds and a tiny umbrella in my drink.

Aloha...

;-)

utbagpiper · Dec 21, 2014

OC for ME said:
Take a serious butt whoopin, serious bodily injury, or death and hope to get a check...sounds like a even trade to me.

And again we see sub-standard reading comprehension (or deliberate dishonesty) at work again.

jdazzle made perfectly clear and I alluded to a line that if crossed would require a physical response. Neither of us have ever suggested that one endure serious risk to life or limb. We have both said that mild offenses, minor infringements of rights, small indignities are better to be endured on the spot so as to minimize the risk to life and limb so as to resolve properly in court.

Even the resident troll has not gone so far as to claim he would put up physical resistance; he has merely engaged in vigorous speech.

Please try to keep up with the actual discussion rather than throwing out bombs without any basis in what anyone has written.

Charles

cloudcroft · Dec 21, 2014

utbagpiper,

Please be advised that with some people here, and on some occasions, "resistance is futile."

Please proceed accordingly... ;-)

OC for ME · Dec 22, 2014

utbagpiper said:
And again we see sub-standard reading comprehension (or deliberate dishonesty) at work again. ...

Insult(s) are noted. I read every post and my post illustrates the sentiment of you and others perfcetly. I agree, the side of the road is never the place to debate the issue. If you know a cop is gunna give you a butt whoopin for no ustifiable reason, what are you gunna do? Me, take the butt whoopin and hope I don't end up seriously disabled or dead. Cops are on edge and they will not take any chance that they may be next. They don't gotta pay the price, they just gotta claim "good faith" and hope the system finds their act(s) "reasonable."

Clarification is good. Unfortunately "mild offenses, minor infringements of rights, small indignities" are not created equal. Who defines a mild offense? You? When, at the moment the perceived "mild offenses, minor infringements of rights, small indignities" occurs?

Do you not recall the Dorner event? My post, that you take exception to, perfectly illustrates my point and proves my premise true when applied to that event, and others. What of the Boston Constitution Suspension Event? Would any citizen have the right to defend themselves, ans their property, from the acts of those cops? Would they? What of the Aurora Constitution Suspension Event?

Cops are given a great deal of leeway so as to effectively perform their duties, I do not have a issue with this. It is incumbent upon every cop to know that there is a line that must not be crossed and to know when that line lies before them. That line is crossed more frequently and frequency of negative consequences, being held to account civilly and criminally, are diminishing

To my knowledge not one cop in Boston, Aurora, or California had the intestinal fortitude to hold his fellow cops to account for their blatant "mild offenses, minor infringements of rights, small indignities."

cloudcroft · Dec 22, 2014

While I am very pro-cop, I have always resented the "Thin Blue Line" when it came to the concept of "us vs. them."

Apparently, it doesn't mean "cops vs. criminals" (a given, as one would reasonably assume) but "cops vs. citizens & criminals."

To my simple thinking (as a simple gorilla, I therefore think simply) the "us vs. them" SHOULD mean "cops & citizens vs. criminals," as cops & citizens are supposed to be the good guys -- BOTH against the bad guys. On the SAME side.

Plus, We the People are the masters while the cops are public servants -- it seems they think/act like it's the other way around. Since when are servants superior to their masters?

Finally, I dislike ANY group not standing against/dealing with the trash within their group...be it the cops -- OR ethnic groups. Especially those who won't even ADMIT there's any amongst them.

Fergurson

The Truth

Regular Member

utbagpiper

Banned

Logan 5

Regular Member

OC for ME

Regular Member

WalkingWolf

Regular Member

utbagpiper

Banned

J_dazzle23

Regular Member

davidmcbeth

Banned

J_dazzle23

Regular Member

OC for ME

Regular Member

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran

utbagpiper

Banned

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran

OC for ME

Regular Member

cloudcroft

Campaign Veteran