BMWAG arrested AND jailed

imported post

longwatch wrote:

I'm with Dan, citizens have the right to observe the police operating in public, armed or not. Arresting him for not showing his ID is not justification for an obstruction of justice arrest in this Commonwealth. Though I do recommend hiring a good attorney who can cite the case law afirming this.

Click to expand...

I agree. This hill will be a tiny bit tougher to climb than Dan's other case. The last case, he was approached by the police for no reason. That puts the burden on them, and they clearly can't meet it.

In this case, he initiated the contact. I don't know how that affects the case.

I'm still unclear as to whether the obstruction charge is about not showing ID, not putting your hands on your head or both. The ID part is definitely bogus. I don't know about the putting your hands on your head...that would probably swing on the legality of the detainment, and the fact that Dan approached them may effect that.

imported post

I would think that would be more resisting arrest than obstruction if that.
18.2-479.1. Resisting lawful arrest; penalty. A. Any person who intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a law-enforcement officer from lawfully arresting him, with or without a warrant, is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
B. For purposes of this section, intentionally preventing or attempting to prevent a lawful arrest means fleeing from a law-enforcement officer when (i) the officer applies physical force to the person, or (ii) the officer communicates to the person that he is under arrest and (a) the officer has the legal authority and the immediate physical ability to place the person under arrest, and (b) a reasonable person who receives such communication knows or should know that he is not free to leave.

ETA: On rereading Dans account it seems that they arrested him as before, for failure to produce ID. This is pretty chilling when you consider what if Dan had no ID to produce.

imported post

http://www.oag.state.va.us/Opinions/2002opns/02-082.pdf

imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:

PT111, I'm surprised that you think the RKBA extends to WMDs, but regular pistols don't extend to crime scenes. Amazing you think a crime scene is a good disarmed citizen zone.

Click to expand...

My thoughts are during an actual police investigation if as third party interjects themselves into the investigation then the police have the right to threat that party as part of the incestigation. If you were investigating a mass shooting wouldb't you want to remove the gun from the suspect. This has nothing to do with walking up and down the streets with a weapon but rather when a crime may have occured.

In the thread about WMD I asked if 2A covered WMD but I don't think that WMD or guns are covered by 2A at a crime scene. If so then wouldn't they be allowed in jails which may be a good idea. Would cut down on over crowding.

imported post

Good Reading:

http://www.epic.org/privacy/hiibel/cato_amicus.pdf

imported post

ama-gi wrote:

longwatch wrote:

I'm with Dan, citizens have the right to observe the police operating in public, armed or not. Arresting him for not showing his ID is not justification for an obstruction of justice arrest in this Commonwealth. Though I do recommend hiring a good attorney who can cite the case law afirming this.

Click to expand...

I agree. This hill will be a tiny bit tougher to climb than Dan's other case. The last case, he was approached by the police for no reason. That puts the burden on them, and they clearly can't meet it.

In this case, he initiated the contact. I don't know how that affects the case.

I'm still unclear as to whether the obstruction charge is about not showing ID, not putting your hands on your head or both. The ID part is definitely bogus. I don't know about the putting your hands on your head...that would probably swing on the legality of the detainment, and the fact that Dan approached them may effect that.

Click to expand...

If we can't initiate contact with the police, they're going to get... LONELY!:lol:

imported post

O.K. - I understand Terry stops, but investigative stops are not part of the VA. code. There is no crime and no penalty for refusing consent to be disarmed if not arrested. Refusing to be disarmed when arrested would be resisting arrest. Police use the obstrution of justice charge because that is the closest thing to a violation of the VA code that they can find.

The I.D. thing is clearly wrong. Police do not have the authority to arrest you because you do not show I.D.

imported post

peter nap wrote:

Judgment and ego's doen'y necessarly go together. The way it looks to me, is like you went there to satisfy your ego. The I can Carry and you can't stop me.....attitude .

That's fine and is your decision.

Cops have to carry and show ID, Reporters have to carry ID, Insurance Agents have to carry ID. Ordinary Citizens do not! But a citizen approaching a crime scene, armed should exercise some judgment and have ID...and show it on request. That's not the same thing as a police officer interrupting your dinner at Fudruckers and asking for ID.

If one wishes to make a statement and NEVER SHOW ID...that's his business, but don't whine about it when you get hauled down to the pokie. This makes all gun owners look bad and especially OC'rs.

Black and armed irritates me also. I DISLIKE RACISTS. I also dislike people who use their race to explain poor judgment. IMHO...under the same circumstances. the same thing would happen to a white person!

Click to expand...

1. Danbus has not whined.

2. Danbus does not attribute his adventures with police to racism. Others attribute the over reaction of police to Dan's race.

3. From Danbus' account it appears that the police did not have the elements necessary to detain Danbus. If the police said he was doing nothing wrong but then detain him, there is no reasonably articulated suspicion for a Terry stop.

4. Reporters do not have to carry I.D. Reporters often do have credentials, which they use to try and gain interviews, etc.

5. To suggest that a citizen should not complain about going to the pokey for not showing I.D. is worthy of a duct tape alert.

imported post

PT111 wrote:

In the thread about WMD I asked if 2A covered WMD but I don't think that WMD or guns are covered by 2A at a crime scene. If so then wouldn't they be allowed in jails which may be a good idea. Would cut down on over crowding.

Click to expand...

This paragraph has nothing at all to do with the subject at hand. Dan wasn't carrying WMD, ok? He was carrying a handgun. So that's worthless.

As far as you equating guns at a "crime scene" (which is making a huge leap right there...we have no idea if this was a crime scene) with guns in a JAIL, that's completely ludicrous. What are you smoking??? People in jail are convicted or at least ARRESTED with probable cause...and investagatory stop is just investigating. The two are nothing like each other.

You don't lose your rights as soon as you get within eyeshot of a cop. No requirement to show ID. (I'm not sure about the statement that you don't have to be disarmed unless arrested...I've heard the exact opposite).

Gang, for future reference, is PT111 a troll or what?

imported post

After reading everyone's posts, I'm happy to say that I'm glad everyone commented on the situation.

As far as "playing the race card", I'm simply saying that because I'm black, things like this happen to me more often than someone else.

Let me give you some background for those of you who don't know. The police were called on me when I was OCing in Wal-Mart. The investigation wasabout ME, yet they didn't disarm me. One afternoon, Shauncey and I walked outside the house to find 2 LEOs in the backyard "conducting an investigation" of drug dealing behind a house. I was OCing. They didn't disarm me. They just watched me carefully.

Furthermore, I didn't know that they were doing an investigation. I was told that they were talking to a kid. He could have been the victim, who knows. I found out that they were doing the investigation after I asked "what's going on?". Once they decided to disarm me, I asked if I was being detained or am I free to go. They acknowledged that I was being detained.

They felt unsafe that I was there, but didn't allow me to leave the area.

It was said that there are black members on the site. There hasn't been not ONE OCer that I have met here in VA. NOT ONE. Yes, there are black members, however they are in different states and whom I have not met. It is NOT a racial thing, but a biased thing.

Anyways, here the the recording. It's best that you listen to it more than once. I didn't capture the WHOLE encounter, just when I knew that I was being detained. At 10:00, there isn't much more as they put the recorder in the car.




___________________



sorry, i'm having trouble finding someone to host the recording

imported post

Thundar wrote:

peter nap wrote:

Judgment and ego's doen'y necessarly go together. The way it looks to me, is like you went there to satisfy your ego. The I can Carry and you can't stop me.....attitude .

That's fine and is your decision.

Cops have to carry and show ID, Reporters have to carry ID, Insurance Agents have to carry ID. Ordinary Citizens do not! But a citizen approaching a crime scene, armed should exercise some judgment and have ID...and show it on request. That's not the same thing as a police officer interrupting your dinner at Fudruckers and asking for ID.

If one wishes to make a statement and NEVER SHOW ID...that's his business, but don't whine about it when you get hauled down to the pokie. This makes all gun owners look bad and especially OC'rs.

Black and armed irritates me also. I DISLIKE RACISTS. I also dislike people who use their race to explain poor judgment. IMHO...under the same circumstances. the same thing would happen to a white person!

Click to expand...

1. Danbus has not whined.

2. Danbus does not attribute his adventures with police to racism. Others attribute the over reaction of police to Dan's race.

3. From Danbus' account it appears that the police did not have the elements necessary to detain Danbus. If the police said he was doing nothing wrong but then detain him, there is no reasonably articulated suspicion for a Terry stop.

4. Reporters do not have to carry I.D. Reporters often do have credentials, which they use to try and gain interviews, etc.

5. To suggest that a citizen should not complain about going to the pokey for not showing I.D. is worthy of a duct tape alert.

His whole account is whining!

His subtitle is something like "It's hard to Be Black and Armed"
Sure sounds like he's blaming it on being black to me.

Item 4, your right. It was a smartass poke at doing something stupid!

#5 If you read my post instead of picking useless details, it says he used poor JUDGMENT.....I didn't say the police were right, in fact, I think he can beat it with a good lawyer....I said he used POOR JUDGEMENT!!!!

I have a perfect right to dress up like the Grand Dragon and go door to door in the projects collecting for UNICEF,,,,but it would show damn POOR JUDGEMENT. I doubt I'd make out alive.

He has to realize that if he puts himself in questionable situations and doesn't bend at all, he'll get arrested.....Over and over and over. It's not right but it's called reality!

Now I could really give a rats ass if he wants to do that. It's his business but....Especially this year when the General assembly is pressured by the Tech shootings and localities are demanding control over firearms carry....we DON'T need the adverse publicity!

Click to expand...

imported post

Bottom line. . .Dan didn't do a damn thing which was against the law.

It's been posted here ad nasium that not showing your ID when asked by the police (and there is no probable cause ) is not an arrestable offense.

Pure and simple, he was arrested because he was the wrong color, He wasn't blue.

He wasn't a part of "the brotherhood" for only they should be allowed to carry firearms per their own words. Anybody else is a "cop wannabe" or a "Assclown." He wasn't part of "the brotherhood" and he had a gun on. Therefore he was suspect.

Us vs. Them boys and girls, you'd be wise to remember this. Why we are allowing the hired help to behave this way is behind me.

imported post

PT111 wrote:

My thoughts are during an actual police investigation if as third party interjects themselves into the investigation then the police have the right to threat that party as part of the incestigation.

Click to expand...

Is that where they are investigating "Uncle Daddy"?

Back on topic. Since Danbus was not charged with any gun related crimes, remove the gun from the OP and read it again. Did he do anything that is against the law? Did he obstruct the investigation? Did he do anything besides stand firm on his rights?

LoveMyCountry

imported post

No pun intended but the issue is black and white to me. Either what Dan did was illegal or it was NOT illegal. All of this speculation of him being provacative by approaching the officers is irrelevant. He certainly may have annoyed the officers by approaching and asking a question but that is certainly not grounds for arrest. There is a line and that line needs to be crystal clear for both police and citizens. If the police feel empowered to move that line a little bit this way or a little bit that way based on their mood, then we should all be acting like Danbus and making sure the location of the line is clear as day. GO DANBUS !!!!!

imported post

danbus wrote:

It was said that there are black members on the site. There hasn't been not ONE OCer that I have met here in VA. NOT ONE. Yes, there are black members, however they are in different states and whom I have not met. It is NOT a racial thing, but a biased thing.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that there are no black OCers in VA? Are you saying that there are no OCDO black members who OC?

Simply because you have not met one?

Have you met all the OCDO members in VA or something?

I do not get your logic on this point.

And why would black OCers in states other than VA be different than black OCers in VA? I don't get that logic either. Seems to me to be the same basic structure.

You've got some weak points points in the above post, and they're getting weaker. For example, "It is NOT a racial thing, but a biased thing." is pretty much incomprehensible. I don't know what you mean considering your OPimplicitly made it a racial thang.

Now, it's not racial but rather biased? Good Lord, what the heck does that mean?

You seem to be confused. This is a serious matter. I suggest that it's time for a cold hard appraisal of your part in the string of 5 or 6 incidents involving Wal-Mart and various LEOs in the last 4 months or so. You're wayyyy out there on the distribution.

In my opinion, if you don't get your stuff together, you're likely to:

a) be convicted of some crime.

b) be charged with some new crime.

c) be hurt physically in some way.

d) become a poster child for how not to OC.

e) seriously damage the reputation of other OCers, VCDL and OCDO.

f) lose yourCWP or your right to carry a gun.




edit for clarity

imported post

G*d D**n it HankT,

Now I HAVE to AGREE with you AGAIN :cuss:...:lol:.

What's going on Lately. I've had to agree with a couple of times, this might ruin your reputation:lol:.

imported post

http://www.davrow.us

imported post

Dan, I'd still like to know if you were charged with obstruction JUST for not showing ID or if you were also charged for not giving your gun willingly, or not putting your hands on your head or some other such thing.

As far as getting a site to host the audio, just google audio file hosting. There are plenty of sites.

imported post

I have a question. Is there anyonewho hasEVER heard of an instance of somebody open carrying and interfering with a LEO investigation where the officer involved was threatened by that OC'ers weapon (e.g. brandishing, grabbing for their weapon, etc.)? Does anyone have access to LEXIS-NEXIS? If there is no recording of this type of behavior being common, then what are the LEOs afraid of? I would understand if it is a common occurrence for LEO's to be threatened by OC'ers pulling out there weapons on Police. But if there are no prior instances of such behavior, aren't they (LEO's)just being paranoid?

imported post

Armed4Life wrote:

No pun intended but the issue is black and white to me. Either what Dan did was illegal or it was NOT illegal. All of this speculation of him being provacative by approaching the officers is irrelevant. He certainly may have annoyed the officers by approaching and asking a question but that is certainly not grounds for arrest. There is a line and that line needs to be crystal clear for both police and citizens. If the police feel empowered to move that line a little bit this way or a little bit that way based on their mood, then we should all be acting like Danbus and making sure the location of the line is clear as day. GO DANBUS !!!!!

Click to expand...

+1

I don't comment very much on here, but some of thenonsense I'm looking at in this thread is more than I can stand.

I can not comment on the legality of what went down, but DB, you got my respect. I believe that you believe in what you are doing, and I do not believe you possess mal-intent. I respect the way you relentlessly stand up for what you believe in despite the attempts to silence you. I wish more people, my self included, had more courage of conviction the way you appear to. I think society at large would be better off as a result.

All this pontificating on what DB’s intentions are and were is irrelevant speculative BS and it doesn’t pass the smell test. Holier-than-thou Monday morning quarterbacking burns me to no end. Walk a mile in a man’s shoes before you start slinging mud, would you?

As for Hanks whining about how such events might make OCers look, *** I have to disagree ***. There are some things that are worth fighting for, even if it is percieved"bad", "evil", or whatever elseto idiots and sheeple. I’ve no interest in being restricted to what the sheeple think, to what the police may be accustomed to dealing with (vice what the law says they can deal with), or to what police think that they know when the laws say differently. Hypothetically speaking, if I’m not breaking any laws, then I couldn’t give a crap what your opinion of my actions is, nor would I take some power-hungry pompous assclown putting me in handcuffs lying down.

It appears to me, given the info that I have before me – which I freely admit may not be the whole story - that the reasons for the charges that get slapped against DB is less about breaking the law and more about vindictive noodle heads trying to shut up people they don’t like. Maybe I’m 180 degrees off, but from where I am sitting thissituation is worth scrutiny by people who have the authority to correct this kind of thing. If such scrutiny reveals thatDB is getting a raw deal, I really hope heads roll (figuratively, of course).

Give em hell DB!