Detained on the 4th of July

DreQo · Jul 5, 2008

imported post

codename_47 wrote:

Me: Ok, I'll tell you what Sergeant, I will go secure my firearm momentarily. Now that I've agreed to that, can I ask you a question?

Just me, I would have told him to arrest me and placed my arms behind my back. Lets go see this magistrate, and afterwards we can go to Federal court and talk about my 42 USC 1983 lawsuit...

Brown: What..are you a lawyer?

No, I'm a pro-se litigant.

Brown: I uh wuh?! Look, either secure the firearm, leave, or we'll go see the magistrate. You've got about 5 seconds. (he looks at his watch

me: 4,3,2,1...

Yeah, I could have taken it all the way, however I had a talk with my girlfriend on the way there where I promised her that if it came down to either being arrested or complying, I would first get the cop to admit he didn't know what law he was enforcing, then leave. I got what I needed, and didn't upset the girlfriend too much in the process, either.

Thundar · Jul 5, 2008

imported post

DreQo

Sorry this happened to you. Just wondering why you didn't have a voice recorder?

What is the law in N.C. for using voice recorders to record conversations? Not a Monday morning QB, I live in Chesapeake, VAand often go to Moyock, NC. I have researched the NC gun laws, but not the wiretapping/voice recording laws. Have I been breaking any N.C code walking around N.C. with my voice recorder on?

Doug Huffman · Jul 5, 2008

imported post

Somewhere on OCDO is the citation of a special interest site on eavesdropping laws for each state.

Ohio Patriot · Jul 5, 2008

imported post

UTOC-45-44 wrote:

They would just claim IGNORANCE which is a LEO's FAVORITE saying. "I can claim Ignorance and Ignorance is NOT an excuse to you as a civi"!!!!

Yep. And this is why we should always send a certified letter to a PD and SO before open carrying. The letter should explain why OC is legal, and should inform them of the need to educate all their LEOs on this matter.

Why send the letter?

If you have proof the PD or SO received the letter, the PD or SO cannot claim that they didn’t know the law.

SouthernBoy · Jul 5, 2008

imported post

It appears after having read a number of similar negative encounters with LEOs that there is one common thread with all of this

They are not expecting someone to be reasonably well versed in the laws of the state, so when you hit them with this knowledge, it throws them off a bit. Since they have already opened the dance, they are very reluctant to back out of it and say, "Oh, you're right. We didn't think of that. Please do go on your way and forgive us for impeding your journey.".

This just ain't going to happen because the LEOs are in over their heads and are not about to back out and admit they were wrong. They are hoping to either trip you up, get you to begin down the path of increasing anger, or intimidate you enough that you will just give in and "obey" their illegal behavior. But there is no way that they are going to lose face and admit they were in the wrong and you are absolutely correct.

THIS is why they must be called to the carpet whenever they act in such a manner. And called down hard enough that it will not happen again. As I have said before, I fully support law enforcement and appreciate the difficultly of their jobs. But I abhor cops with an attitude and a "holier than thou" approach to the people who own their departments and therefore their jobs! They are there to do our bidding.. not the other way around.

Sorry. I'll get off of my esoteric high horse and let someone else take a ride.

Gunslinger · Jul 5, 2008

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

DreQo wrote:

As far as getting a lawyer involved, there's NO way that's going to happen from a monetary stand-point.

Click to expand...

OK, in that case, go directly to the city attorney for New Bern, North Carolina.

Ask him what laws the police department was enforcing.

(I assume they have a full time city attorney)

Sheriff is absolutely correct. File a formal complaint against the two cops, who are probably well intentioned, but not very bright--hick town cops, after all. Send a letter to the Chief and let him know you're filing a formal complaint for violation of your constitutional rights under the NC Constitution. I was once asked by a cop if I was a lawyer. When I said yes, his whole attitude changed--nice and friendly as could be. But you shouldn't have to be one to have your rights respected. Yours weren't. You handled the situation very well, now do the same in your follow-up. Good luck!

Gunslinger · Jul 5, 2008

imported post

The city attorney will be the one who has to defend against a law suit filed against the city or its agency. He is accountable for spending the tax payers' money. He will indeed be interested in a possible law suit--as will the mayor, selectmen--or whatever they call them in NC. And he will be the one to most clearly see no law was violated or about to be violated, hence an actionable violation of a citizen's rights which could incur significant punitive damages. A town of 27,000 doesn't have deep pockets.

"Not sure how this would contribute to a complaint. This isn't a criticism of the suggestion. I'm just not able to see how it would contribute to the complaint process"

GLENGLOCKER · Jul 5, 2008

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

I guess this is the time I would speak up again and remind people that most cops are not thrilled with the open carry laws and will do anything to deprive you of the privilege. Some of you will once again disagree with myestimate of "most cops".

I would be going directly to the chief and ask him personally what laws his officers felt they were enforcing. And if you have the money, I would take an attorney with me.

I would never disagree with that estimate Sheriff. I work with an ex Norfolk police officer and he told me that some officers, even though they know something is legal, if it is one of there pet peeves they will hassle people about it. I think it just shows how as a society we have let our standards get so low through affimative action and diversity programs, things like this are bound to happen. Also it's striking how the officers responded when he started quoted the law to them asking if he was a lawyer, yet how many times have officers told people "son ignorance of the law is no excuse"

LEO 229 · Jul 5, 2008

imported post

GLENGLOCKER wrote:

I would never disagree with that estimate Sheriff. I work with an ex Norfolk police officer and he told me that some officers, even though they know something is legal, if it is one of there pet peeves they will hassle people about it. I think it just shows how as a society we have let our standards get so low through affimative action and diversity programs, things like this are bound to happen. Also it's striking how the officers responded when he started quoted the law to them asking if he was a lawyer, yet how many times have officers told people "son ignorance of the law is no excuse"

I stopped a guy who was a suspect in a bomb threat. He started spouting off legal jargon and I asked him the same question. "Are you an attorney?"

Why did I ask? Because I wanted to know. :lol: And it turned out that he was in fact.. in law school.

This was good to know so that he and I could discuss things on another level since he should know more than the average citizen.

He asked.. "What would happen if I refuse to talk to you?" and he should have know this already... So I guess it was his first year. When I told him he would be arrested and charged it did not phase him too much. But when I mentioned I would have animal control come get his dog... he decided to talk to me instead and was allowed to leave.

Jack Hollowpoint · Jul 5, 2008

imported post

You're being "detained" when the police stop you for questioning -- which they did.

You're legally obliged to provide ID to police whenever you're being detained for questioning -- and you were being detained.

Police can bar you from a "public event" just because you're being "antagonistic" -- particularly if you're armed -- which you were, on both counts.

Your understanding of the law is superficial. Open carry may be legal, but there are a litany of other legal reasons why police can bar you from being armed at a public event.

You're obstructing a police officer in the lawful performance of his duty. And from there, you're just wading deeper and deeper into the legal quagmire. In dealing with a "suspect" such as yourself, police are trained to provide you with a lot of legal hurdles. When you step over them, you just assist the police in building a case against you -- That's why "Matthews" called for a second officer, a witness.

The police are charged with maintaining law, and order. They have the right to detain you for questioning -- being openly armed at a public gathering is sufficient cause. They have the right to compell you to produde ID, and if you refuse they have cause to place you under arrest. What they can charge you with falls under the rubric of any of a litany of broadly defined statutes regarding "disorderly conduct" or "disturbing the peace." "Contributing to the public terror" would be in that broad class of statutes.

You may have the legal right to open carry. But you don't have the legal right to confront law enforcement and otherwise obstruct their sworn duty to uphold the peace and social order.

You're being an asshole. Somebody needs to explain this to you in terms you understand. The police should have arrested you, confiscated your firearm, and let you spend some time in lock-up until they get around to arraignment. Typically, they don't do arraignments over the week-end. So you'd be in lock-up until Monday.

When they confiscate your firearm for an offense and you're convicted, you don't get the gun returned.

And now you need to get yourself an attorney. You're going to lose this case, but maybe you can plea bargin down to a minor infraction.

You seriously stepped in it.

skidmark · Jul 5, 2008

imported post

SCOTUS 07-290 wrote:

You're being "detained" when the police stop you for questioning -- which they did.

You're legally obliged to provide ID to police whenever you're being detained for questioning -- and you were.

Police can bar you from a "public event" just because you're being "antagonistic" -- particularly if you're armed -- which you were, on both counts.

I didn't wade through your post. I've heard most of this before.

The police are charged with maintaining law, and order. They have the right to detain you for questioning -- being openly armed at a public gathering is sufficient cause. They have the right to compell you to produde ID, and if you refuse they have cause to place you under arrest. What they can charge you with falls under the rubric of any of a litany of broadly defined statutes regarding "disorderly conduct" or "disturbing the peace."

You may have the legal right to open carry. But you don't have the legal right to confront law enforcement and otherwise obstruct their sworn duty to uphold the peace and social order.

And now you need to get yourself an attorney. You're going to lose this case, but maybe you can plea bargin down to a minor infraction.

Please provide citations in support of each of the assertions you have made. I ask you to do so because I fear that I have been operating under a false set of assumptions and want to bring my understanding "up to speed".

stay safe.

skidmark

hsmith · Jul 5, 2008

imported post

SCOTUS 07-290 wrote:

-snip-

You're being an @#$%. Somebody needs to explain this to you in terms you understand. The police should have arrested you, confiscated your firearm, and let you spend some time in lock-up until they get around to arraignment. Typically, they don't do arraignments over the week-end. So you'd be in lock-up until Monday.

When they confiscate your firearm for an offense and you're convicted, you don't get the gun returned.

And now you need to get yourself an attorney. You're going to lose this case, but maybe you can plea bargin down to a minor infraction.

You seriously stepped in it.

I wonder what your agenda is. :lol:

Advocating illegal arrest, advocating denying you your rights, to "teach you a lesson" that you can't do what is legal - all on the day we are to celebrate your FREEDOMS!

SouthernBoy · Jul 5, 2008

imported post

GLENGLOCKER wrote:

Sheriff wrote:

I guess this is the time I would speak up again and remind people that most cops are not thrilled with the open carry laws and will do anything to deprive you of the privilege. Some of you will once again disagree with myestimate of "most cops".

I would be going directly to the chief and ask him personally what laws his officers felt they were enforcing. And if you have the money, I would take an attorney with me.

Click to expand...

I would never disagree with that estimate Sheriff. I work with an ex Norfolk police officer and he told me that some officers, even though they know something is legal, if it is one of there pet peeves they will hassle people about it. I think it just shows how as a society we have let our standards get so low through affimative action and diversity programs, things like this are bound to happen. Also it's striking how the officers responded when he started quoted the law to them asking if he was a lawyer, yet how many times have officers told people "son ignorance of the law is no excuse"

Want proof of discrimination or bigotry? Look no further than what I have bolded in your text. And it's done under the color of law. I could have sworn that was a violation of the Constitution.

SouthernBoy · Jul 5, 2008

imported post

SCOTUS 07-290 wrote:

You're being "detained" when the police stop you for questioning -- which they did.

You're legally obliged to provide ID to police whenever you're being detained for questioning -- and you were being detained.

Police can bar you from a "public event" just because you're being "antagonistic" -- particularly if you're armed -- which you were, on both counts.

Your understanding of the law is superficial. Open carry may be legal, but there are a litany of other legal reasons why police can bar you from being armed at a public event.

You're obstructing a police officer in the lawful performance of his duty. And from there, you're just wading deeper and deeper into the legal quagmire. In dealing with a "suspect" such as yourself, police are trained to provide you with a lot of legal hurdles. When you step over them, you just assist the police in building a case against you -- That's why "Matthews" called for a second officer, a witness.

The police are charged with maintaining law, and order. They have the right to detain you for questioning -- being openly armed at a public gathering is sufficient cause. They have the right to compell you to produde ID, and if you refuse they have cause to place you under arrest. What they can charge you with falls under the rubric of any of a litany of broadly defined statutes regarding "disorderly conduct" or "disturbing the peace." "Contributing to the public terror" would be in that broad class of statutes.

You may have the legal right to open carry. But you don't have the legal right to confront law enforcement and otherwise obstruct their sworn duty to uphold the peace and social order.

You're being an @#$%. Somebody needs to explain this to you in terms you understand. The police should have arrested you, confiscated your firearm, and let you spend some time in lock-up until they get around to arraignment. Typically, they don't do arraignments over the week-end. So you'd be in lock-up until Monday.

When they confiscate your firearm for an offense and you're convicted, you don't get the gun returned.

And now you need to get yourself an attorney. You're going to lose this case, but maybe you can plea bargin down to a minor infraction.

You seriously stepped in it.

I wholly and catagorically could not disagree more with your assessments. Were we to conduct ourselves in such a manner and allow this type of behavior to exist and continue against any sort of legal activity, we would be living in a police state (something I would want no part of and in the extreme case, favor armed response to such a thing).

I support your right to your opinions as I would not be an American if I did not. But I also support and honor that which was handed to to me and mine through the fruits and blood of patriots. I fail to see where any of your remarks could foster continuance of American liberty.

Perhaps I am wearing blinders and perhaps you know much more than I. Hopefully, you do not live in Virginia (not that I don't want you to but more to the affect that I hope such behavior on the part of law enforcement is not in your past as a Virginian). When the time comes that we bend our knees and bow our heads to authority that WE have chosen to temporarily alot to others, we can cease to call ourselves Americans and start to call ourselves subjects.

Sheriff · Jul 5, 2008

imported post

SCOTUS 07-290 wrote:

You're being "detained" when the police stop you for questioning -- which they did.

You're legally obliged to provide ID to police whenever you're being detained for questioning -- and you were being detained.

Police can bar you from a "public event" just because you're being "antagonistic" -- particularly if you're armed -- which you were, on both counts.

Your understanding of the law is superficial. Open carry may be legal, but there are a litany of other legal reasons why police can bar you from being armed at a public event.

You're obstructing a police officer in the lawful performance of his duty. And from there, you're just wading deeper and deeper into the legal quagmire. In dealing with a "suspect" such as yourself, police are trained to provide you with a lot of legal hurdles. When you step over them, you just assist the police in building a case against you -- That's why "Matthews" called for a second officer, a witness.

The police are charged with maintaining law, and order. They have the right to detain you for questioning -- being openly armed at a public gathering is sufficient cause. They have the right to compell you to produde ID, and if you refuse they have cause to place you under arrest. What they can charge you with falls under the rubric of any of a litany of broadly defined statutes regarding "disorderly conduct" or "disturbing the peace." "Contributing to the public terror" would be in that broad class of statutes.

You may have the legal right to open carry. But you don't have the legal right to confront law enforcement and otherwise obstruct their sworn duty to uphold the peace and social order.

You're being an @#$%. Somebody needs to explain this to you in terms you understand. The police should have arrested you, confiscated your firearm, and let you spend some time in lock-up until they get around to arraignment. Typically, they don't do arraignments over the week-end. So you'd be in lock-up until Monday.

When they confiscate your firearm for an offense and you're convicted, you don't get the gun returned.

And now you need to get yourself an attorney. You're going to lose this case, but maybe you can plea bargin down to a minor infraction.

You seriously stepped in it.

Time for everybody to get their boots out. It's getting deep in here. :lol:

Prophet · Jul 5, 2008

imported post

I always find it funny when cops ask if you are a lawyer when you start defending your rights. If i say yes i am a lawyer will they suddenly treat you differently and acknowledge what you say because they know you don't have to pay anyone to bring a civil suit against them? And if you say no, does that give them the mental carte blanche to intimidate you and try to brow beat you into forfeiting your civil rights?

Is it a crime to impersonate a lawyer?

Citizen · Jul 5, 2008

imported post

SCOTUS 07-290 wrote:

You're being "detained" when the police stop you for questioning -- which they did.

You're legally obliged to provide ID to police whenever you're being detained for questioning -- and you were being detained.

Police can bar you from a "public event" just because you're being "antagonistic" -- particularly if you're armed -- which you were, on both counts.

Your understanding of the law is superficial. Open carry may be legal, but there are a litany of other legal reasons why police can bar you from being armed at a public event.

You're obstructing a police officer in the lawful performance of his duty. And from there, you're just wading deeper and deeper into the legal quagmire. In dealing with a "suspect" such as yourself, police are trained to provide you with a lot of legal hurdles. When you step over them, you just assist the police in building a case against you -- That's why "Matthews" called for a second officer, a witness.

The police are charged with maintaining law, and order. They have the right to detain you for questioning -- being openly armed at a public gathering is sufficient cause. They have the right to compell you to produde ID, and if you refuse they have cause to place you under arrest. What they can charge you with falls under the rubric of any of a litany of broadly defined statutes regarding "disorderly conduct" or "disturbing the peace." "Contributing to the public terror" would be in that broad class of statutes.

You may have the legal right to open carry. But you don't have the legal right to confront law enforcement and otherwise obstruct their sworn duty to uphold the peace and social order.

You're being an @#$%. Somebody needs to explain this to you in terms you understand. The police should have arrested you, confiscated your firearm, and let you spend some time in lock-up until they get around to arraignment. Typically, they don't do arraignments over the week-end. So you'd be in lock-up until Monday.

When they confiscate your firearm for an offense and you're convicted, you don't get the gun returned.

And now you need to get yourself an attorney. You're going to lose this case, but maybe you can plea bargin down to a minor infraction.

You seriously stepped in it.

Cites, please.

GLENGLOCKER · Jul 5, 2008

imported post

Citizen wrote:

SCOTUS 07-290 wrote:

You're being "detained" when the police stop you for questioning -- which they did.

You're legally obliged to provide ID to police whenever you're being detained for questioning -- and you were being detained.

Police can bar you from a "public event" just because you're being "antagonistic" -- particularly if you're armed -- which you were, on both counts.

Your understanding of the law is superficial. Open carry may be legal, but there are a litany of other legal reasons why police can bar you from being armed at a public event.

You're obstructing a police officer in the lawful performance of his duty. And from there, you're just wading deeper and deeper into the legal quagmire. In dealing with a "suspect" such as yourself, police are trained to provide you with a lot of legal hurdles. When you step over them, you just assist the police in building a case against you -- That's why "Matthews" called for a second officer, a witness.

The police are charged with maintaining law, and order. They have the right to detain you for questioning -- being openly armed at a public gathering is sufficient cause. They have the right to compell you to produde ID, and if you refuse they have cause to place you under arrest. What they can charge you with falls under the rubric of any of a litany of broadly defined statutes regarding "disorderly conduct" or "disturbing the peace." "Contributing to the public terror" would be in that broad class of statutes.

You may have the legal right to open carry. But you don't have the legal right to confront law enforcement and otherwise obstruct their sworn duty to uphold the peace and social order.

You're being an @#$%. Somebody needs to explain this to you in terms you understand. The police should have arrested you, confiscated your firearm, and let you spend some time in lock-up until they get around to arraignment. Typically, they don't do arraignments over the week-end. So you'd be in lock-up until Monday.

When they confiscate your firearm for an offense and you're convicted, you don't get the gun returned.

And now you need to get yourself an attorney. You're going to lose this case, but maybe you can plea bargin down to a minor infraction.

You seriously stepped in it.

Click to expand...

Cites, please.

When you challenge someone to back things up with facts that aren't there the silence can be deafening. Cites please!!!!! LEO I think the officer in question was being a smart you know what more then anything.

Citizen · Jul 5, 2008

imported post

Prophet wrote:

I always find it funny when cops ask if you are a lawyer when you start defending your rights. If i say yes i am a lawyer will they suddenly treat you differently and acknowledge what you say because they know you don't have to pay anyone to bring a civil suit against them? And if you say no, does that give them the mental carte blanche to intimidate you and try to brow beat you into forfeiting your civil rights?

Is it a crime to impersonate a lawyer?

Lying to a cop weakens your position later. See the video of Professor James Duane at Regent Law School.

Treat a police encounter like acontract negotiation. There are things that you would never reveal to the other party, for example the true size of your funds for the purchase.

A police officer is asking the question because he wants to use the information. He may wantit for a perfectly legitimate reason.He may want it for sneaky reasons.Either way, revealing it to himmay strengthen his negotiating position, and like any contract negotiation, may make you have to work harder. So, I would like to suggest conserving your negotiating position.

One possible method:Ignore thequestion and keep to your own plan oryour own line of questioning. You want to maintain the initiative to the extent possible. Asking questions, rather than answering questions accomplishes this. This is senior to negotiating position. It is in fact an undeclared negotiation over how to go about the negotiation--who gets to ask questions and who gets to answer.

You could always say, "I won't be answeringquestionsin the absence of my personal attorney." Realize that if its gotten to the point where a cop is asking if you are a lawyer, its past the point of a friendly chat.

If you want togain some negotiating strength, you could ask, "Officer, are you suggesting that you would treat me less than professionally if I am not an attorney?" Of course, he'll be almost forced to say, "No." I'm betting he just drops the attorney business. If he doesn't you could just say, "Good, then it doesn't matter, does it?"

Also, do not discount the fact that he may be asking the question just to intimidate you with the concept that since you are not an attorney, you can't possibly know the law as well as he does. I think this was the cop's intended message for DreQuo.

Citizen · Jul 5, 2008

imported post

Gunslinger wrote:

The city attorney will be the one who has to defend against a law suit filed against the city or its agency. He is accountable for spending the tax payers' money. He will indeed be interested in a possible law suit--as will the mayor, selectmen--or whatever they call them in NC. And he will be the one to most clearly see no law was violated or about to be violated, hence an actionable violation of a citizen's rights which could incur significant punitive damages. A town of 27,000 doesn't have deep pockets.

"Not sure how this would contribute to a complaint. This isn't a criticism of the suggestion. I'm just not able to see how it would contribute to the complaint process"

Got it. I was thinking of that, but not that in-depth.

Are you suggesting it as the primary channel for the complaint, or an additional channel that would bring, possibly, more attention and scrutiny to the IA investigation?

Detained on the 4th of July

State Researcher

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member