mobeewan
Regular Member
imported post
ProShooter wrote:
ProShooter wrote:
Especially since one of the officers recognized him and initially said nothing.
-
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.
-
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.
Detained by NPD yet AGAIN!!!
- Thread starter danbus
- Start date
mobeewan
Regular Member
imported post
hsmith wrote:
Yes Norfolk PD is racist. I was at the council meeting whenDan and Chet addressed them. There were several blacks that were also at the meetingmaking complaints about the heavy handedness of police in the black community. One kid was just sitting on his own front porch doing nothingand was approached by police wanting to know where he lived. Another was arrested and charged for obstruction of justice for refusing to give his SSN even after he identified himself to the shemale officer that was harrassing him. After the meeting I gave him and his mother a copy of the AG's opinion that I carry onme at all times stating that failure to identify was not obstruction. They had no idea that the arrest for obstructionwas illegal.
I kind of poopooed the DWB (driving while black) thing in the past. After seeing police gone bad videos from police car cameraswhen stopping someblacks and what I heard at the council meeting as typical behavior in Norfolk I have a change of mind.
With Dan it appears that we havecases of CWB (carrying while black).
Dan, were you wearing your BMWAG hat. You said you also had a 1911 in your bag. Will you be getting a new one that says "Black Man With Two Guns":lol:.
hsmith wrote:
Yes Norfolk PD is racist. I was at the council meeting whenDan and Chet addressed them. There were several blacks that were also at the meetingmaking complaints about the heavy handedness of police in the black community. One kid was just sitting on his own front porch doing nothingand was approached by police wanting to know where he lived. Another was arrested and charged for obstruction of justice for refusing to give his SSN even after he identified himself to the shemale officer that was harrassing him. After the meeting I gave him and his mother a copy of the AG's opinion that I carry onme at all times stating that failure to identify was not obstruction. They had no idea that the arrest for obstructionwas illegal.
I kind of poopooed the DWB (driving while black) thing in the past. After seeing police gone bad videos from police car cameraswhen stopping someblacks and what I heard at the council meeting as typical behavior in Norfolk I have a change of mind.
With Dan it appears that we havecases of CWB (carrying while black).
Dan, were you wearing your BMWAG hat. You said you also had a 1911 in your bag. Will you be getting a new one that says "Black Man With Two Guns":lol:.
mobeewan
Regular Member
imported post
ProShooter wrote:
ProShooter wrote:
We could organize a bus in and ride several busses while open carrying. We could call it "Operation Dan Bus".
SicSemperTyrannis
Regular Member
imported post
1. Has VCDL been notified?
2. Chet is having "problems" with his lawsuit only because the second amendment has not been incorporated (yet) and because he chose to sue n federal court over a federal issue. That has next to nothing to do with what hapened here.
3. I carry a voice recorder everywhere I go now, and am committed to not giving any officer any information about my identity unless I am in a car. I fully (and voluntarily)cooperated the one time I had an incident in Henrico a few years ago, but I am going to let the officer hang himself next time (all on tape). With that said, I have passed over 20 officers in the past two weeks in Henrico, Richmond and Alexandria with nary a word said while open carrying a Sig . 40. Most officers know the law.... only Norfolk seems to have a problem. Then again, I also am white.
4. Speaking of which.... I know you usually tape these things, Dan. Any chance you taped this interaction?
5. Dan: did you ever end up telling them your name?
6. It's understandable (and yes, I know... debateable) as to whether or not the officers had to "check things out" upon receiving the call from the bus driver. Personally, I accept why they would sometimes do so. My biggest issue is with the officer who thinks (or lies) saying there is some sort of ordinance requiring individuals to identify themselves... when it is settled Virginia law that there is no such requirement (when not driving). Also, with the officer who mentioned disroderly conduct...
1. Has VCDL been notified?
2. Chet is having "problems" with his lawsuit only because the second amendment has not been incorporated (yet) and because he chose to sue n federal court over a federal issue. That has next to nothing to do with what hapened here.
3. I carry a voice recorder everywhere I go now, and am committed to not giving any officer any information about my identity unless I am in a car. I fully (and voluntarily)cooperated the one time I had an incident in Henrico a few years ago, but I am going to let the officer hang himself next time (all on tape). With that said, I have passed over 20 officers in the past two weeks in Henrico, Richmond and Alexandria with nary a word said while open carrying a Sig . 40. Most officers know the law.... only Norfolk seems to have a problem. Then again, I also am white.
4. Speaking of which.... I know you usually tape these things, Dan. Any chance you taped this interaction?
5. Dan: did you ever end up telling them your name?
6. It's understandable (and yes, I know... debateable) as to whether or not the officers had to "check things out" upon receiving the call from the bus driver. Personally, I accept why they would sometimes do so. My biggest issue is with the officer who thinks (or lies) saying there is some sort of ordinance requiring individuals to identify themselves... when it is settled Virginia law that there is no such requirement (when not driving). Also, with the officer who mentioned disroderly conduct...
Bubba Ron
Regular Member
imported post
ProShooter wrote:
Dan, it must be your personal magnetism!! I like the idea of educating the HRT folks, they have caused you problems more than once....
ProShooter wrote:
We did this a day after Dans "gun to the head" encounter with NPD, in the evening for over two and a half hours, Chet even met up with us at Waterside. We walked all over downtown Norfolk - not one LEO approached us. It seems like they don't like witnesses....
Dan, it must be your personal magnetism!! I like the idea of educating the HRT folks, they have caused you problems more than once....
Harper1227
Regular Member
imported post
danbus wrote:
danbus wrote:
Youshould've asked the LEO to arrest the bus driver for disorderly conduct. Considering you were doing nothing wrong, SHE was the one causing the "public inconvenience" by delaying the bus over her irrational fears.
Neplusultra
Regular Member
imported post
Renegade wrote:
Renegade wrote:
HA! Joking of course. It would be hard NOT to notice that thing. Does Blackhawk make a retention holster for it :^)?doug23838 wrote:I think Danbus should buy himself a new 24k Gold Desert Eagle in .50 AE caliber!!!
imported post
Neplusultra wrote:
He starts carrying that thing, they'll arrest him for being a Pimp:shock:
Neplusultra wrote:
Renegade wrote:HA! Joking of course. It would be hard NOT to notice that thing. Does Blackhawk make a retention holster for it :^)?doug23838 wrote:I think Danbus should buy himself a new 24k Gold Desert Eagle in .50 AE caliber!!!
He starts carrying that thing, they'll arrest him for being a Pimp:shock:
Neplusultra
Regular Member
imported post
Jared wrote:
Disturbing the peace, HA! I hope you had your recorder going Dan :^).
Jared wrote:
Exactly my experience. LEOs are supposed to be servants of the law, not perverters of it. Misusing the law to try to scare someone into submission is NOT a mission of the police. IMHO. They should only accurately use the law to do so. If there is no law that can be properly used to force compliance then why are they even questioning the person!!! A law has to be broken or be about to be broken for the police to have any business detaining someone.
Disturbing the peace, HA! I hope you had your recorder going Dan :^).
hsmith
Regular Member
imported post
Neplusultra wrote:
Neplusultra wrote:
But the sad part is, if it were someone not well versed in the law - they could have very well ended up in jail. If it were someone who maybe a bit less intelligent, they would be in jail. It is down right criminal
Neplusultra
Regular Member
imported post
If I show up in Norfolk in blackface, do you think I could get free money too :lol:?
If I show up in Norfolk in blackface, do you think I could get free money too :lol:?
Neplusultra
Regular Member
imported post
Harper1227 wrote:
It would have made for a really good argument on the sidewalk there.
Harper1227 wrote:
Hmmmm. Very good point !
It would have made for a really good argument on the sidewalk there.
Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
danbus wrote:
There is no stop and identify law in Virginia, but many cities have enacted ordnances that require a person who is a suspectto identify themselves. The requirement varies from city to city and ranges from name to full name and address. I have found no city with a requirement to produce an identity document. IANAL, but I would provide my name and address if requested by a police officer in VA unless I knew that the city I was in did not have a stop and identify law.
Norfolk city code:
Sec. 29-73.1. Suspects to identify themselves.
(a)Any law enforcement officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances creating a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime, and require the person to identify himself. Any person so detained shall identify himself by giving his full legal name, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any law enforcement officer.
(b)A person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.
(Ord. No. 41,880, § 1, 6-14-05)
Link: http://www.municode.com/RESOURCES/gateway.asp?pid=10121&sid=46
Please no flame, I think a stop and identify law is offensive to liberty and I think that the pretense for detaining Danbus is utterly without merit and perhaps racist. I am an activist and I posted the law because Iwant other activists to know what is out there.
danbus wrote:
There is no stop and identify law in Virginia, but many cities have enacted ordnances that require a person who is a suspectto identify themselves. The requirement varies from city to city and ranges from name to full name and address. I have found no city with a requirement to produce an identity document. IANAL, but I would provide my name and address if requested by a police officer in VA unless I knew that the city I was in did not have a stop and identify law.
Norfolk city code:
Sec. 29-73.1. Suspects to identify themselves.
(a)Any law enforcement officer may detain any person whom the officer encounters under circumstances creating a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime, and require the person to identify himself. Any person so detained shall identify himself by giving his full legal name, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of any law enforcement officer.
(b)A person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor.
(Ord. No. 41,880, § 1, 6-14-05)
Link: http://www.municode.com/RESOURCES/gateway.asp?pid=10121&sid=46
Please no flame, I think a stop and identify law is offensive to liberty and I think that the pretense for detaining Danbus is utterly without merit and perhaps racist. I am an activist and I posted the law because Iwant other activists to know what is out there.
Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
Thundar wrote:
Danbus,
The way I read the Norfolk law, if you gave your full legal name, the officer who later compelled you to provide I.D. committed a class 3 misdemeanor!!:what:
If the FOIA dash cam shows you identifying yourself and then the police compelling you to provide other info, including producing I.D., I would visit the Norfolk magistrates office and press charges against the offending officer.
They will think twice if they are held criminally accountable for their criminal actions.:celebrate
Thundar wrote:
Danbus,
The way I read the Norfolk law, if you gave your full legal name, the officer who later compelled you to provide I.D. committed a class 3 misdemeanor!!:what:
If the FOIA dash cam shows you identifying yourself and then the police compelling you to provide other info, including producing I.D., I would visit the Norfolk magistrates office and press charges against the offending officer.
They will think twice if they are held criminally accountable for their criminal actions.:celebrate
Neplusultra
Regular Member
imported post
Thundar wrote:
Thundar wrote:
OK, in this instance, does the LEO have "reasonable" suspicion based solely on the woman's phone call? IOW, can a mere unsubstantiated accusation of wrong doing be enough to detain? The answer I would assume is yes as long as the witness provides some evidence of wrongdoing such as Dan was fondling his gun while looking menacingly at her. But if it is later determined that it was unsubstantiated or she provides no evidence of something illegal doesn't that make the witness liable for a false report? Or at least doesn't it make the police dispatcher liable for not correcting her error before detaining the citizen? "Someone" did wrong here and who should pay for that wrong? The old saying goes, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
hsmith
Regular Member
imported post
Neplusultra wrote:
Neplusultra wrote:
But it begs the question, if he is behaving and is abiding by the law, even if she did call it in because she was ignorant of the law, how can he still be breaking a law giving them "reasonable suspicion"!
Neplusultra
Regular Member
imported post
hsmith wrote:
Again, *somebody* is at fault here.
hsmith wrote:
That would depend on what she said to the dispatcher, hello FOIA! Did she gin up what was going on? Or did the dispatcher not correct her as to the law? If she lied about what he was doing then she is liable for false report *but* the police were justified in detaining. If she just said something like, "He's scaring the other passengers because he's wearing a gun". Then it would be the dispatchers fault for not correcting her or investigating more to find out exactly what was happening *before* detaining the citizen.
Again, *somebody* is at fault here.
imported post
Dan -
Correct me if I am wrong, but did you not post a while back than Norfolk PD had issued instructions for street cops to call for a supervisor before taking any action beyond a brief detaining of your person? I seem to recall that there was some speculation about your picture bering passed out as well. (I'm too lazy to do a search for that. Sorry if anyone gets upset because I am lazy this AM.)
Based on your history with Norfolk PD at this point, I'd be surprised if any lawyer in the Tidewater area would not take your case on a contingency fee basis.
Please keep us updated on how this progresses.
stay safe.
skidmark
Dan -
Correct me if I am wrong, but did you not post a while back than Norfolk PD had issued instructions for street cops to call for a supervisor before taking any action beyond a brief detaining of your person? I seem to recall that there was some speculation about your picture bering passed out as well. (I'm too lazy to do a search for that. Sorry if anyone gets upset because I am lazy this AM.
)Based on your history with Norfolk PD at this point, I'd be surprised if any lawyer in the Tidewater area would not take your case on a contingency fee basis.
Please keep us updated on how this progresses.
stay safe.
skidmark
Malum Prohibitum
Regular Member
imported post
danbus wrote:
"Of course the possession of firearms is not, generally speaking, a crime unless you happen to be a convicted felon, the firearms are otherwise illegal, or you are not licensed to possess the gun. Martin, presumably not clairvoyant, could not have known, and did not know, the Dudleys and their guns met all three of these criteria."
United States v. Dudley, 854 F.Supp. 570, 580 (S.D.Ind.1994)
http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6332
:lol:
danbus wrote:
They might have had a reasonable suspicion to stop you on that ground. Maybe they were clairvoyant.
"Of course the possession of firearms is not, generally speaking, a crime unless you happen to be a convicted felon, the firearms are otherwise illegal, or you are not licensed to possess the gun. Martin, presumably not clairvoyant, could not have known, and did not know, the Dudleys and their guns met all three of these criteria."
United States v. Dudley, 854 F.Supp. 570, 580 (S.D.Ind.1994)
http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6332
:lol:
Malum Prohibitum
Regular Member
imported post
Neplusultra wrote:
"A telephone report of citizens possessing guns or merely engaging in “suspicious” activity, standing alone, cannot amount to reasonable suspicion of crime."
United States v. Dudley, 854 F.Supp. 570, 580 (S.D.Ind.1994)
http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6332
Neplusultra wrote:
"A telephone report of citizens possessing guns or merely engaging in “suspicious” activity, standing alone, cannot amount to reasonable suspicion of crime."
United States v. Dudley, 854 F.Supp. 570, 580 (S.D.Ind.1994)
http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6332