• 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.

Hampton Bay Days Once Again

L

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

glock9emem wrote:
Privacy Act applies. The woman has affiliation with the AF and I cannot release her information without her permission.
Click to expand...
This does not matter unless she attached that default text at the bottom of the email stating "it is not to be forwarded and shall be deleted if received by anyone other than the intended recipient."

Just because I am affiliated with my department does not mean I cannot forward ANY email I receive. There is no "privacy act" attached to an email I receive.
 
D

danbus

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2006
Messages
495
Location
Hampton, Virginia, USA
imported post

Hey! Just got back from a day at Bay Day. Got a good story. I shall title it, "what should always happen".

My brother and I were walking around for about 15 mins when 2 LEOs tapping on my arm and asked to speak with me. At this point, I really wanted to know what was going to be said. This is my side of the story. Since it was relatively short, I'll just be brief.

Cops come up and ask me to put the gun back in the car. I tell them "no" and ask them why. They say it's because Bay Day rules state there is to be no weapons in Bay Day areas. I remind them of state preemption and ask for a supervisor. He says he is the supervisor and I then ask him to call the magistrate.

At this point there are 6 cops - 2 that I was talking to, 2 other at my 8 o'clock and 2 more at my 4 o'clock, however they were about 21 ft away.

The guy then asks for my ID, which I tell him no. He then says they will charge me will "obstruction of justice". I say, "great, that means money for me", because at this point I'm annoyed. He then asks do I even have ID. I tell him no, that I left my ID someplace because something like this might happen. The other LEO asks for my name, I tell him I'm not going to give it. He then replies "sir, your just stacking up the charges". I rebuttal, "good, that means even more money".

The LEO in charge gets on the phone with a Lt, and steps away for 2 mins. Comes back and tells me that he wishes me a good day and if I had to use it, just make sure I'm in the right. I tell him "okay, you guys be safe" and we just walk away.

The whole thing took about 10 mins of my life, so I wasn't too upset. So..............anyone want to join me at Bay Day tomorrow?????
 
R

roscoe13

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
1,134
Location
Catlett, Virginia, USA
imported post

SP101 wrote:
I'm begining to wonder if there ever WAS an e-mail.:?
Click to expand...

Who cares. The point is that the event management forbid their workers (paid or volunteer is irrelevant) to carry guns while working at the event. Even if we think that's a stupid idea, they were well within their rights to do so. They didn't try to restrict the general public from carrying guns, which they apparrently knew they couldn't legally do. What's all the fuss about?

Sorry for being on-topic:banghead:
 
Dutch Uncle

Dutch Uncle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
1,715
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

Dan called to relate his story to me, and I was surprised to hear the Hampton Police still don't have the story straight. An editorial in the Daily Depressed on Aug 10th said "Hampton wanted a gun ban at Bay Days but realized in 2005 that the state had made it powerless". [How utterly appalling...less power for the government; more power for the people. What is the world coming to? - JvB ] Its kind of disturbing that the folks at the papers know the law, but the police don't.

Either that, or the police DO know the law, and are just trying to intimidate people by acting as if OC is forbidden. The LEO suggested Dan would be charged with obstruction of justice for not showing ID [which citizens are NOT required to carry at Bay Days], but in the end, no charges were filed. Very interesting.......
 
M

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

danbus wrote:
Hey! Just got back from a day at Bay Day. Got a good story. I shall title it, "what should always happen".

My brother and I were walking around for about 15 mins when 2 LEOs tapping on my arm and asked to speak with me. At this point, I really wanted to know what was going to be said. This is my side of the story. Since it was relatively short, I'll just be brief.

Cops come up and ask me to put the gun back in the car. I tell them "no" and ask them why. They say it's because Bay Day rules state there is to be no weapons in Bay Day areas. I remind them of state preemption and ask for a supervisor. He says he is the supervisor and I then ask him to call the magistrate.

At this point there are 6 cops - 2 that I was talking to, 2 other at my 8 o'clock and 2 more at my 4 o'clock, however they were about 21 ft away.

The guy then asks for my ID, which I tell him no. He then says they will charge me will "obstruction of justice". I say, "great, that means money for me", because at this point I'm annoyed. He then asks do I even have ID. I tell him no, that I left my ID someplace because something like this might happen. The other LEO asks for my name, I tell him I'm not going to give it. He then replies "sir, your just stacking up the charges". I rebuttal, "good, that means even more money".

The LEO in charge gets on the phone with a Lt, and steps away for 2 mins. Comes back and tells me that he wishes me a good day and if I had to use it, just make sure I'm in the right. I tell him "okay, you guys be safe" and we just walk away.

The whole thing took about 10 mins of my life, so I wasn't too upset. So..............anyone want to join me at Bay Day tomorrow?????
Click to expand...
There you go - STERILE CARRY!
 
Virginiaplanter

Virginiaplanter

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
402
Location
, ,
imported post

Good Job Danbus!


I thought this might be of some help because the phrase "obstruction of justice" has been used in several threads and incidents.

"[O]bstruction of justice does not occur when a person fails to cooperate fully with an officer or when the person's conduct merely renders the officer's task more difficult" or "frustrate [his or her] investigation." Ruckman, 505 S.E.2d at 389, 390....In examining each constituent part of the officers' qualified immunity claim, we do not lose sight of the possible inference from the evidence that Rogers' arrest was motivated by the officers' anger at his "irreverent" refusal to consent to their search. In short, crediting Rogers' version of disputed factual issues, as we must, it appears that this may not be a case in which police officers acting in good faith made a "bad guess" in a confusing area of the law, but instead, may be a case in which police officers, angered by a homeowner's correct statement of his legal rights and refusal to permit a search which was clearly illegal absent his consent, arrested a homeowner in a fit of pique. The officers now seek to justify their arrest with an implausible reading of cases establishing a simple right to approach a home to speak to the owner without a warrant, assertions that verbal objection to an illegal search is an independently arrestable offense, and claims that a suspect was intoxicated in public when it is disputed whether he was intoxicated and the clear evidence indicates that he was not in public. The police do not have a right to arrest citizens for refusing to consent to an illegal search. The decision of the district court is therefore affirmed." Rogers v. Pendleton, 249 F.3d 279, 285 (4th Cir. 2001).
 
L

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

danbus wrote:
Hey! Just got back from a day at Bay Day. Got a good story. I shall title it, "what should always happen".

My brother and I were walking around for about 15 mins when 2 LEOs tapping on my arm and asked to speak with me. At this point, I really wanted to know what was going to be said. This is my side of the story. Since it was relatively short, I'll just be brief.

Cops come up and ask me to put the gun back in the car. I tell them "no" and ask them why. They say it's because Bay Day rules state there is to be no weapons in Bay Day areas. I remind them of state preemption and ask for a supervisor. He says he is the supervisor and I then ask him to call the magistrate.

At this point there are 6 cops - 2 that I was talking to, 2 other at my 8 o'clock and 2 more at my 4 o'clock, however they were about 21 ft away.

The guy then asks for my ID, which I tell him no. He then says they will charge me will "obstruction of justice". I say, "great, that means money for me", because at this point I'm annoyed. He then asks do I even have ID. I tell him no, that I left my ID someplace because something like this might happen. The other LEO asks for my name, I tell him I'm not going to give it. He then replies "sir, your just stacking up the charges". I rebuttal, "good, that means even more money".

The LEO in charge gets on the phone with a Lt, and steps away for 2 mins. Comes back and tells me that he wishes me a good day and if I had to use it, just make sure I'm in the right. I tell him "okay, you guys be safe" and we just walk away.

The whole thing took about 10 mins of my life, so I wasn't too upset. So..............anyone want to join me at Bay Day tomorrow?????
Click to expand...
Too funny....

I have to say... they had empty threats but you knew you were in the right.

Sorry this had to happen. Some LEOs just do not know and he probably did have the best intentions.... but you were allowed to carry. I can only guess that he confirmed this with his LT.

Next time... When he says "I am a supervisor"... tell him "Unless your the Chief... I want to speak to YOUR supervisor." :D

I can appreciate Mike's comment about "Sterile Carry" butI feel it isa poor suggestion since you cannot be forced to produce it anyway. It would be an illegal search of your person unless you were being charged with a crime.

Having ID does two things for you. 1) If you were charged with a Class 1 or 2 Misdemeanor... you have ID so you can be released on a summons. But more importantly... if you had a medical emergency and your family needed to be notified... That ID card will let people know where you live.

Good job on your encounter....
 
F

FogRider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
1,412
Location
Centennial, Colorado, USA
imported post

Virginiaplanter wrote:
Good Job Danbus!


I thought this might be of some help because the phrase "obstruction of justice" has been used in several threads and incidents.

"[O]bstruction of justice does not occur when a person fails to cooperate fully with an officer or when the person's conduct merely renders the officer's task more difficult" or "frustrate [his or her] investigation." Ruckman, 505 S.E.2d at 389, 390....In examining each constituent part of the officers' qualified immunity claim, we do not lose sight of the possible inference from the evidence that Rogers' arrest was motivated by the officers' anger at his "irreverent" refusal to consent to their search. In short, crediting Rogers' version of disputed factual issues, as we must, it appears that this may not be a case in which police officers acting in good faith made a "bad guess" in a confusing area of the law, but instead, may be a case in which police officers, angered by a homeowner's correct statement of his legal rights and refusal to permit a search which was clearly illegal absent his consent, arrested a homeowner in a fit of pique. The officers now seek to justify their arrest with an implausible reading of cases establishing a simple right to approach a home to speak to the owner without a warrant, assertions that verbal objection to an illegal search is an independently arrestable offense, and claims that a suspect was intoxicated in public when it is disputed whether he was intoxicated and the clear evidence indicates that he was not in public. The police do not have a right to arrest citizens for refusing to consent to an illegal search. The decision of the district court is therefore affirmed." Rogers v. Pendleton, 249 F.3d 279, 285 (4th Cir. 2001).
Click to expand...


My eyes crossed about halfway through that, but I didn't see anything that defines what OOJ is. Do you have anything on that?
 
Virginiaplanter

Virginiaplanter

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
402
Location
, ,
imported post

My eyes crossed about halfway through that, but I didn't see anything that defines what OOJ is. Do you have anything on that?
Click to expand...


This is also from that case that will give you more information.

"Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-460(A), which states that "if any person without just cause knowingly obstructs a . . . law enforcement officer in the performance of his duties. . . he shall be guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor." The key issue is whether under any reasonable interpretation of § 18.2-460(A), Rogers' actions constituted a violation of that provision....A conviction for violation of the statute requires proof of "`acts clearly indicating an intention on the part of the accused to prevent the officer from performing his duty, as to
`obstruct' ordinarily implies opposition or resistance by direct action. . . It means to obstruct the officer himself not merely to oppose or impede the process with which the officer is armed.'" Ruckman, 505 S.E.2d at 389 (quoting Jones v. Commonwealth, 126 S.E. 74, 77 (Va. 1925)). Thus, like the statute considered by the Virginia Supreme Court in Jones, § 18.2-460(A) requires "actual hindrance or obstruction of the officer," "opposition or resistance by direct action." Polk v. Commonwealth, 358 S.E.2d 770, 772-73 (Va. App. 1987)."
 
F

FogRider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
1,412
Location
Centennial, Colorado, USA
imported post

I know that is VA and not CO, but it seems to say that OOJ means literaly standing in the way, and not withholding information. If that is correct, I wonder when it got perverted into "not complying to any request is obstruction". I think I am going to go find a lawyer versed in gun law, and pick his brain. Probably not a bad idea to have a lawyer on retainer anyway.
 
Neplusultra

Neplusultra

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
2,224
Location
Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
imported post

Mister Danbus!

That was one wild encounter. My hat is off to you. I guess there's no substitute for the confidence of knowing the law and your willingness to make it painful for those who don't :^).
 
M

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

FogRider wrote:
I know that is VA and not CO,
Click to expand...
Well, this is VA, and in VA, "a law-enforcement officer, even when armed with reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be occurring, may not arrest a suspect for obstruction of justice on the basis that the suspect refuses to identify himself." Attny. Gen. Op. (Va. Oct. 10 2002) (emphasis added), reprinted at http://www.oag.state.va.us/Opinions/2002opns/02-082.pdf.

Under the facts profferred by Dunbus, AKA, "Black Man with a Gun," the police were not even armed with "reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be occurring."

As police detention of a person without at least reasonable articulable suspicion that the person is or is about to engage in criminal activity is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. See e.g., Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

Danbus just showed us how, with the right person under the right facts, sterile carry can be an effective tool to lawfully demonstrate and protect your civil rights.
 
R

Reverend73

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2006
Messages
549
Location
Gainesville, VA
imported post

Well, Danbus and myself (with gfriend, her sister and little 2yr old niece) went to Bay Days today. We got some long stares from both the general populace and from some LEOs, but never stopped or anything like that. I had the camcorder just in case and would turn it on and get it readywhenever we saw LEOs approaching, but none ever did even say two words to us. The festival was pretty neat though, got a funnel cake (in honor of Chet) and saw some of the Sammy Kershaw concert. A great day to OC.



Edit: Dan was not wearing his hat yesterday (when he got stopped) or today.
 
Neplusultra

Neplusultra

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
2,224
Location
Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
imported post

Reverend73 wrote:
Edit: Dan was not wearing his hat yesterday (when he got stopped) or today.
Click to expand...

HA! A little TOO controversial maybe :^)? I'm thinking about starting a thread about why exactly are we doing this (OCing). Some would say the attention, or a power trip, but I say the main purpose should be to desensitize the public and LE. So that a man with a gun, be he white or black, is not something to be feared but something to be seen as making things more secure for the law abiding citizen, even more so than what CC can do since OC is "seen" by both the criminal and the law abider.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top