• 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.

Terrible OC Experience

O

Outsider

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
385
Location
Orem, Utah, USA
imported post

xRapidDavex wrote:
Outsider wrote:
xRapidDavex wrote:
If I don't know a law, I can't inforce it. But ignorance of the law on your part is no excuse." So basically these uninformed officers could shoot you because they are edgy, even though they don't know the law..... THEY HAVE AN EXCUSE TO BE IGNORANT, BUT WE DO NOT!
Click to expand...
Did you or TJ get that recorded?
Click to expand...

I don't keep a tape recorder on me, but TJ might. I've heard LEOs say that before, but now it seems to hold dire consequences for us.
Click to expand...

It would be a good thing to use against them. If you think about it they should be at a higher standard of knowing the law instead of normal citizens. When you hold a higher position (not saying a LEO is higher, but in the public eye they probably are) or a public officer (which a LEO is) you are held at a higher standard then your peers.
 
X

xRapidDavex

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
431
Location
, ,
imported post

I admit that they can't know EVERY LAW.... But they like to argue that "firarms make people nervous":shock:

So logically, you would think that they would LEARN FIREARMS LAWS :cuss:
 
S

swillden

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
1,189
Location
Firestone, Colorado
imported post

Outsider wrote:
xRapidDavex wrote:
Outsider wrote:
xRapidDavex wrote:
If I don't know a law, I can't inforce it. But ignorance of the law on your part is no excuse." So basically these uninformed officers could shoot you because they are edgy, even though they don't know the law..... THEY HAVE AN EXCUSE TO BE IGNORANT, BUT WE DO NOT!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
It would be a good thing to use against them. If you think about it they should be at a higher standard of knowing the law instead of normal citizens.
Click to expand...
You could try. If you talk to LEOs about this, the response is quite consistent: any lack of knowledge on their part should be corrected with additional training while any lack of knowledge on your part should be corrected with criminal prosecution. This is true even of the pro-gun, pro-OC cops who frequent OCDO.

I don't know, but strongly suspect that this attitude is maintained up through the ranks, and by the prosecutors as well. It's a more subtle form of the "Blue Wall", so subtle I don't think they even realize that they're applying a double standard. Unfortunately, the only way to correct this error is in civil court, via lawsuits. That sucks on any number of levels, including the fact that it takes an egregious violation of the citizen's rights before it's worth taking to court -- meaning minor offenses will never be corrected -- and that it's ultimately the taxpayers who pay the penalty, not the police.

In theory, you should be able to press federal charges against police officers who abuse their authority in this way under the "color of law" statute. As posted on another thread on OCDO, though, 98% of complaints filed under this statute are declined for prosecution. That means the US Attorneys responsible for prosecuting decide it's not worth their time for whatever reason.
 
O

Outsider

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
385
Location
Orem, Utah, USA
imported post

[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][/font]
Civil Applications Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141 makes it unlawful for state or local law enforcement agencies to allow officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives persons of rights protected by the Constitution or U.S. laws. This law, commonly referred to as the Police Misconduct Statute, gives the Department of Justice authority to seek civil remedies in cases where law enforcement agencies have policies or practices that foster a pattern of misconduct by employees. This action is directed against an agency, not against individual officers.

The types of issues which may initiate a pattern and practice investigation include:
• Lack of supervision/monitoring of officers' actions;
• Lack of justification or reporting by officers on incidents involving the use of force;
• Lack of, or improper training of, officers; and
• Citizen complaint processes that treat complainants as adversaries.

Under Title 42, U.S.C., Section 1997, the Department of Justice has the ability to initiate civil actions against mental hospitals, retardation facilities, jails, prisons, nursing homes, and juvenile detention facilities when there are allegations of systemic derivations of the constitutional rights of institutionalized persons.
Click to expand...
[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][/font]
[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]I would think those two bolded sections apply to police officers disarming a law-biding citizens and for their lack of, or improper, training.[/font]
 
X

xRapidDavex

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
431
Location
, ,
imported post

Outsider wrote:
[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][/font]
[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]I would think those two bolded sections apply to police officers disarming a law-biding citizens and for their lack of, or improper, training.[/font]
Click to expand...
In my case, it was legal to disarm me and check the status of my weapon because I was not a permit holder. They did not disarm TJ. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were referencing, but I think they need to stop harrasing TJ which those sections would cover as well.
 
U

usSiR

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
258
Location
Ogden, UT, ,
imported post

good grief...

I want a copy of the letter so i can mail it to all the Weber county LEO. I'll also mail it to the other most northern Countys; Box Elder, Cache, Rich, and even Morgan.
 
thx997303

thx997303

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
2,712
Location
Lehi, Utah, USA
imported post

Outsider, this is two such incidents, both in Utah, and seemingly right around within a week of each other.

While this is harassing TJ, This is also a horrible trend in Utah.

When they can't get you on any FIREARMS CHARGES, they then decide to justify the time they just wasted.

They have several officers, committed to harassing a law abiding citizen, while they are being unproductive. So they decide to either turn it into an "investigation" Which justifies the situation to their Supervisor, or they charge you with Disorderly Conduct, which makes it so they weren't being unproductive, as they cited someone with a crime, that could result in a fine.

Which by the way, this may have already been said, but according to 76-9-102
the offense is only an infraction, until an order to desist has been issued and ignored.

So if they charge you with Disorderly Conduct, Fight it!

Do not just lay down and take it. Call Mitch Vilos.

Yes it will cost you money. Probably more money than the original charge itself, but fight it on principal.

You were doing nothing wrong and you were accosted by the police.

Sorry for the rant.

And I would also like a copy of the letter.
 
O

Outsider

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
385
Location
Orem, Utah, USA
imported post

xRapidDavex wrote:
Outsider wrote:
[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][/font]
[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]I would think those two bolded sections apply to police officers disarming a law-biding citizens and for their lack of, or improper, training.[/font]
Click to expand...
In my case, it was legal to disarm me and check the status of my weapon because I was not a permit holder. They did not disarm TJ. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were referencing, but I think they need to stop harrasing TJ which those sections would cover as well.
Click to expand...
Okay, sorry, but under what policy or UCA code did they disarm you under? It doesn't qualify as a "Terry" Stop and you were legally carrying. They can't disarm you because you have no permit and were you not doing anything to qualify for disarment. Sorry but I don't think anything they did in disarming you was legal at all.
 
X

xRapidDavex

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
431
Location
, ,
imported post

Outsider wrote:
xRapidDavex wrote:
Outsider wrote:
[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][/font]
[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]I would think those two bolded sections apply to police officers disarming a law-biding citizens and for their lack of, or improper, training.[/font]
Click to expand...
In my case, it was legal to disarm me and check the status of my weapon because I was not a permit holder. They did not disarm TJ. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were referencing, but I think they need to stop harrasing TJ which those sections would cover as well.
Click to expand...
Okay, sorry, but under what policy or UCA code did they disarm you under? It doesn't qualify as a "Terry" Stop and you were legally carrying. They can't disarm you because you have no permit and were you not doing anything to qualify for disarment. Sorry but I don't think anything they did in disarming you was legal at all.
Click to expand...
Under suspicion that I'm committing a crime (carrying loaded w/out a permit). They didn't know that I didn't have one in the chamber, and they aren't going to ask me to pull it out and show them.
 
O

Outsider

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
385
Location
Orem, Utah, USA
imported post

xRapidDavex wrote:
Outsider wrote:
xRapidDavex wrote:
Outsider wrote:
[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][/font]
[font="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"]I would think those two bolded sections apply to police officers disarming a law-biding citizens and for their lack of, or improper, training.[/font]
Click to expand...
In my case, it was legal to disarm me and check the status of my weapon because I was not a permit holder. They did not disarm TJ. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were referencing, but I think they need to stop harrasing TJ which those sections would cover as well.
Click to expand...
Okay, sorry, but under what policy or UCA code did they disarm you under? It doesn't qualify as a "Terry" Stop and you were legally carrying. They can't disarm you because you have no permit and were you not doing anything to qualify for disarment. Sorry but I don't think anything they did in disarming you was legal at all.
Click to expand...
Under suspicion that I'm committing a crime (carrying loaded w/out a permit). They didn't know that I didn't have one in the chamber, and they aren't going to ask me to pull it out and show them.
Click to expand...
What crime? Did they say they thought you were committing a crime or what?
 
S

swillden

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2007
Messages
1,189
Location
Firestone, Colorado
imported post

Outsider wrote:
Okay, sorry, but under what policy or UCA code did they disarm you under? It doesn't qualify as a "Terry" Stop and you were legally carrying. They can't disarm you because you have no permit and were you not doing anything to qualify for disarment. Sorry but I don't think anything they did in disarming you was legal at all.
Click to expand...
It's certainly debatable. If the officers can articulate some reasonable basis for suspecting that the weapon was loaded, then they were within their authority to examine it. But I can't see anything in the scenario that would give them that suspicion.

Note that "Terry Stop" issues don't really apply here because they didn't conduct a search for weapons. They did detain him and take his weapon, but not because they deemed it a danger but because they were investigating to see if it was loaded -- a crime for a citizen with out a CFP.
 
O

Outsider

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
385
Location
Orem, Utah, USA
imported post

swillden wrote:
Outsider wrote:
Okay, sorry, but under what policy or UCA code did they disarm you under? It doesn't qualify as a "Terry" Stop and you were legally carrying. They can't disarm you because you have no permit and were you not doing anything to qualify for disarment. Sorry but I don't think anything they did in disarming you was legal at all.
Click to expand...
It's certainly debatable. If the officers can articulate some reasonable basis for suspecting that the weapon was loaded, then they were within their authority to examine it. But I can't see anything in the scenario that would give them that suspicion.

Note that "Terry Stop" issues don't really apply here because they didn't conduct a search for weapons. They did detain him and take his weapon, but not because they deemed it a danger but because they were investigating to see if it was loaded -- a crime for a citizen with out a CFP.
Click to expand...
Re-reading the story I see nothing that would constitute thinking it was a loaded weapon, but that is just me. Personally I just think they wanted something to do and harass (which it was, IMO) a law-biding citizen.
 
thx997303

thx997303

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
2,712
Location
Lehi, Utah, USA
imported post

I'll agree with that, harass a law abiding citizen, who is associating with a known "bad man":?

Who here who has met TJ, has ever found him to be threatening?
 
X

xRapidDavex

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
431
Location
, ,
imported post

Outsider wrote:
swillden wrote:
Outsider wrote:
Okay, sorry, but under what policy or UCA code did they disarm you under? It doesn't qualify as a "Terry" Stop and you were legally carrying. They can't disarm you because you have no permit and were you not doing anything to qualify for disarment. Sorry but I don't think anything they did in disarming you was legal at all.
Click to expand...
It's certainly debatable. If the officers can articulate some reasonable basis for suspecting that the weapon was loaded, then they were within their authority to examine it. But I can't see anything in the scenario that would give them that suspicion.

Note that "Terry Stop" issues don't really apply here because they didn't conduct a search for weapons. They did detain him and take his weapon, but not because they deemed it a danger but because they were investigating to see if it was loaded -- a crime for a citizen with out a CFP.
Click to expand...
Re-reading the story I see nothing that would constitute thinking it was a loaded weapon, but that is just me. Personally I just think they wanted something to do and harass (which it was, IMO) a law-biding citizen.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I would have liked him to ask me and just take my word for it... but we know that won't happen. So instead of making his job harder, I just let him check. It's the first time they ever saw me, plus they were following up on a call from the bank. I acted within the law and justified myself when answering his questions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top