DrMark
Lone Star Veteran
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
Your spin is disgraceful.
Mike never suggested stalking or chasing anyone down.
LEO 229 wrote:
Your spin is disgraceful.
Mike never suggested stalking or chasing anyone down.
-
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.
Kicked out of Kroger in Richmond, threatened by LEO with arrest.
- Thread starter mercutio545
- Start date
kenny
Regular Member
imported post
The officer was working as an agent of the grocery store in his official capacity of a sworn officer. It is his duty to uphold the laws of Virginia, the city of Richmond and the grocery store.
From what little has been reported her by the OP he did not break any laws. I still want to know the rest of the story. I believe Iknow the rest of the story I just want all the facts stated. I have a hunch a lot was left out.
The officer was working as an agent of the grocery store in his official capacity of a sworn officer. It is his duty to uphold the laws of Virginia, the city of Richmond and the grocery store.
From what little has been reported her by the OP he did not break any laws. I still want to know the rest of the story. I believe Iknow the rest of the story I just want all the facts stated. I have a hunch a lot was left out.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
Sure I have. Perhaps not a direct declaration supported with a cite--but he can't complain about that.I did cited a case that covers it. One he should be familiar with. He hasn't been paying attention. Or maybe he has, and he wants us to think a police officer can hold someone whenever he wants.
Terry vs Ohio lays out a piece of thecase lawfor when police may hold people.
It also uses the framework of the 4th Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures to assist in defining what is a reasonable search or seizure.
Thus, the 4th Amendment is the original prohibition. That is to say, its the 4th Amendment itself that says when a police officer may not hold someone--any time it would be unreasonable.
And the case law since1791 has defined whatare reasonable searches and seizures. Terry being a piece of that case law.
Without cutting and pasting a number of individual but separated sentences, I can't quote the rationale of the court in Terry directly. So, I'll give their own wordsas theybridge overintotheir next point:
"...Having thus roughly sketched the perimeters of the constitutional debate over the limits on police investigative conduct in general..."
So, Terry discusses it. You don't have to take my word for it. You can read it for yourself here at the Cornell University Law School website: http://tinyurl.com/2ue6hy
Also, I've never said it was against the law for the police to hold people. All but the newest members know that police need reasonable articulable suspicion before they can hold someone.
LEO 229 wrote:
Sure I have. Perhaps not a direct declaration supported with a cite--but he can't complain about that.I did cited a case that covers it. One he should be familiar with. He hasn't been paying attention. Or maybe he has, and he wants us to think a police officer can hold someone whenever he wants.
Terry vs Ohio lays out a piece of thecase lawfor when police may hold people.
It also uses the framework of the 4th Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures to assist in defining what is a reasonable search or seizure.
Thus, the 4th Amendment is the original prohibition. That is to say, its the 4th Amendment itself that says when a police officer may not hold someone--any time it would be unreasonable.
And the case law since1791 has defined whatare reasonable searches and seizures. Terry being a piece of that case law.
Without cutting and pasting a number of individual but separated sentences, I can't quote the rationale of the court in Terry directly. So, I'll give their own wordsas theybridge overintotheir next point:
"...Having thus roughly sketched the perimeters of the constitutional debate over the limits on police investigative conduct in general..."
So, Terry discusses it. You don't have to take my word for it. You can read it for yourself here at the Cornell University Law School website: http://tinyurl.com/2ue6hy
Also, I've never said it was against the law for the police to hold people. All but the newest members know that police need reasonable articulable suspicion before they can hold someone.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
Nor didthe copcontinue trying to get the ID which he could easily have done, especially if he was really justified and on solid legal ground.
Boy, one has to wonder if LEO229 is following things at all. Or maybe we can't rely too much on his paraphrasing.
According to the OP, the cop didn't decide to kick him out until the OPer asked the cop if he was trying to perform an illegal Terry Stop. This from the OP:
Me: "But I'm not doing anything illegal. Am I being detained? Are you trying to perform an illegal terry stop on me, officer?"
Officer: "Get out of here, now."
LEO 229 wrote:
Nor didthe copcontinue trying to get the ID which he could easily have done, especially if he was really justified and on solid legal ground.
Boy, one has to wonder if LEO229 is following things at all. Or maybe we can't rely too much on his paraphrasing.
According to the OP, the cop didn't decide to kick him out until the OPer asked the cop if he was trying to perform an illegal Terry Stop. This from the OP:
Me: "But I'm not doing anything illegal. Am I being detained? Are you trying to perform an illegal terry stop on me, officer?"
Officer: "Get out of here, now."
les_aker
Regular Member
imported post
DrMark wrote:
It is disgraceful. It's also an excellent example of the type of behavior that everyone has to be aware of whenever they come into contact with "authorities" that are bent on enforcing their opinion instead of respecting the rights that people actually have.
The advantage in having it posted here is that people all over the country can see it and learn ways to deal with it in the event they also have the misfortune to encounter someone who is determined to misrepresent their authority in situations where it is both unnecessary and illegal.
DrMark wrote:
It is disgraceful. It's also an excellent example of the type of behavior that everyone has to be aware of whenever they come into contact with "authorities" that are bent on enforcing their opinion instead of respecting the rights that people actually have.
The advantage in having it posted here is that people all over the country can see it and learn ways to deal with it in the event they also have the misfortune to encounter someone who is determined to misrepresent their authority in situations where it is both unnecessary and illegal.
les_aker
Regular Member
imported post
Citizen wrote:
If there's one thing that gets under the skin of an officer of "the law" it's actually knowning the law and your rights, and not letting them violate either at their leisure.
Citizen wrote:
If there's one thing that gets under the skin of an officer of "the law" it's actually knowning the law and your rights, and not letting them violate either at their leisure.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
les_aker wrote:
Apparently with some.
I especially liked the OPer's letting the officer know that he wasn't trespassing because there was no notification.
Cop lies. Knowledgeable citizen knows better and says so.
So much for that cheesy LEO tactic.
Say, this reminds me of something. Be right back.
les_aker wrote:
Apparently with some.
I especially liked the OPer's letting the officer know that he wasn't trespassing because there was no notification.
Cop lies. Knowledgeable citizen knows better and says so.
So much for that cheesy LEO tactic.
Say, this reminds me of something. Be right back.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
This would fly, except that the LEO expressly referenced prohibited possessor.
"Officer: 'Well I need to make sure you're allowed to carry a gun.' "
LEO 229 wrote:
This would fly, except that the LEO expressly referenced prohibited possessor.
"Officer: 'Well I need to make sure you're allowed to carry a gun.' "
Sheriff
Regular Member
imported post
kenny wrote:
And a sworn police officer can not enforce store policy if it goes against state law.
kenny wrote:
The grocery store has no "laws." At best, they have policy.
And a sworn police officer can not enforce store policy if it goes against state law.
Sheriff
Regular Member
imported post
Citizen wrote:
A lot of cops make it up as they go.
This is why you see so many citizens being detained, harassed, and/or arrested for lawful open carry. :shock:
Citizen wrote:
A lot of cops make it up as they go.
This is why you see so many citizens being detained, harassed, and/or arrested for lawful open carry. :shock:
Sheriff
Regular Member
imported post
MeBaby wrote:
"qualified immunity" does notsave their bacon in a civil court very often.
MeBaby wrote:
You are correct. But those who screw up find out that "acting in good faith" andBut they do get breed that way in the academy's around the country. There is always the training of "use enough force to compel compliance" but they forget to teach about the lawfulness of the order. I guess the thinking is "if I have good intentions, then any order I give must be good and proper (I'll look for the applicable law later)".
"qualified immunity" does notsave their bacon in a civil court very often.
imported post
Citizen wrote:
Since you are so hell bent on this topic and refuse to agree to disagree.. I will continue the debate with you.
The OP was not stopped and seized. The officer talked to him about his gun and the store policy. Cos walk up and talk to people every day and it does not mean you cannot leave.
When Identification is "requested" and not "demanded" there is an allegation that a certain "tone of voice" was used. A that point... could it be possible the OP was now under the impression he was "seized" and not free to go? Sure.
OP...? Did you feel like you could not leave? Be honest.
So could"others" conclude that if the right tone was used that the OP was no longer free to leave? Sure!
But to confirm my suspicion.... There was no intent to seize the OP. The approach and start of the conversation was completely in a voluntary sense.
Did you miss that word "Start" Citizen?? Or are you worked up in a frenzy trying to discredit me and clipping my posts.
I noticed you have shifted away from your case law and have not yet provided me with anything that says the police cannot stop you and talk to you. :lol:
Citizen wrote:
Cannot attack what was said so you attack the guy who said it. :lol:
Since you are so hell bent on this topic and refuse to agree to disagree.. I will continue the debate with you.
The OP was not stopped and seized. The officer talked to him about his gun and the store policy. Cos walk up and talk to people every day and it does not mean you cannot leave.
When Identification is "requested" and not "demanded" there is an allegation that a certain "tone of voice" was used. A that point... could it be possible the OP was now under the impression he was "seized" and not free to go? Sure.
OP...? Did you feel like you could not leave? Be honest.
So could"others" conclude that if the right tone was used that the OP was no longer free to leave? Sure!
But to confirm my suspicion.... There was no intent to seize the OP. The approach and start of the conversation was completely in a voluntary sense.
Did you miss that word "Start" Citizen?? Or are you worked up in a frenzy trying to discredit me and clipping my posts.
I noticed you have shifted away from your case law and have not yet provided me with anything that says the police cannot stop you and talk to you. :lol:
les_aker
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
Bzzzzzzzt. Wrong answer. You don't get a years supply of Rice-o-roni or a copy of our home game.
Citizen did no such thing. What he did was point out once again that you misrepresented the situation and the cited cases. Then he went on to show how you had contradicted yourself. This isn't some street corner where people don't know their rights, the law, and the game that you're attempting to play. Up to this point, he's done a very effective job showing why every opinion you've posted doesn't come close to being factual. The position you've taken is starting to sound a lot like Jack Nickolson's character in "A Few Good Men".
LEO 229 wrote:
Bzzzzzzzt. Wrong answer. You don't get a years supply of Rice-o-roni or a copy of our home game.
Citizen did no such thing. What he did was point out once again that you misrepresented the situation and the cited cases. Then he went on to show how you had contradicted yourself. This isn't some street corner where people don't know their rights, the law, and the game that you're attempting to play. Up to this point, he's done a very effective job showing why every opinion you've posted doesn't come close to being factual. The position you've taken is starting to sound a lot like Jack Nickolson's character in "A Few Good Men".
imported post
les_aker wrote:
I have not contradicted myself either. He has twisted what was said OR.... failed to fully understand what was said and posting otherwise.
Citizen is hell bent on being right when he is CLEARLY wrong. :lol:
Can you post anything to help him out? All you are doing right now is helping him attack the man and not what was said.
I am wide open to SOMETHING to back that a cop cannot stop and talk to you. Citizen has not been able to do this.
The best he can do is show that a search is not voluntary because the stop wasNOT voluntary based on a tone of voice.
The OP was NOT searched!!! So this case law does not apply!
You canbe "seized"for a brief period of time to be certain you are not doing something wrong.
I cannot force you to show me your ID and I cannot pat you down for weapons unless I believe you are a threat. I have to be careful in how I ask you for consent to a search during this voluntary contact.
In the OPs case... The officerapproached a customer armed with a gun that was allegedly against store policy. The cops intent wasprobably to educate the customer and get him to take it out side.
Theofficer requested tosee the OPs identification and was declined. After avery short discussion... The OP was then told to leave.
I am not sure how much seizing was happening there.
Here is the start of the alleged seizing.....
From what I saw.. 0 seconds.
In fact.... when the OP asked if he was being detained.... the officer told him to go.
The officer had no intentto detain him andsent the OP on his way.
This "tone of voice" thing has been blow way out of proportion.
I can get a tone with you and it means I am not happy with you. Not that I am "detaining" you.
EDIT: Clarification on tone and time
les_aker wrote:
Your post is obviously biased because it is clear you do not like me and your emotions areat play. :lol:
I have not contradicted myself either. He has twisted what was said OR.... failed to fully understand what was said and posting otherwise.
Citizen is hell bent on being right when he is CLEARLY wrong. :lol:
Can you post anything to help him out? All you are doing right now is helping him attack the man and not what was said.
I am wide open to SOMETHING to back that a cop cannot stop and talk to you. Citizen has not been able to do this.
The best he can do is show that a search is not voluntary because the stop wasNOT voluntary based on a tone of voice.
The OP was NOT searched!!! So this case law does not apply!
You canbe "seized"for a brief period of time to be certain you are not doing something wrong.
I cannot force you to show me your ID and I cannot pat you down for weapons unless I believe you are a threat. I have to be careful in how I ask you for consent to a search during this voluntary contact.
In the OPs case... The officerapproached a customer armed with a gun that was allegedly against store policy. The cops intent wasprobably to educate the customer and get him to take it out side.
Theofficer requested tosee the OPs identification and was declined. After avery short discussion... The OP was then told to leave.
I am not sure how much seizing was happening there.
Here is the start of the alleged seizing.....
How long was he "forced" to stay there?
From what I saw.. 0 seconds.
In fact.... when the OP asked if he was being detained.... the officer told him to go.
The officer had no intentto detain him andsent the OP on his way.
This "tone of voice" thing has been blow way out of proportion.
I can get a tone with you and it means I am not happy with you. Not that I am "detaining" you.
EDIT: Clarification on tone and time
darthmord
Regular Member
imported post
Something I noticed just now...
Why did it go from a conversation about trespassing to questioning someone about being allowed to carry a gun?
If the issue was with trespassing, the gun has nothing to do with it. The presence of the gun is about as relevant as whether or not the OP was wearing a ballcap. Trespassing is about whether or not your presence is in contravention of established policy. It has little to do with what you are wearing on your person.
(Yes I am aware that in VA if you are asked to leave a place and refuse to, you are trespassing. That is especially trueif you are carrying.)
Instead, we see (based on the OP) the switch in questioning from trespassing to whether or not the OP was allowed to carry a gun. At the very least, it was heading to something inappropriate. At the worst, it was already into an illegalTerry stop.
Something I noticed just now...
Why did it go from a conversation about trespassing to questioning someone about being allowed to carry a gun?
If the issue was with trespassing, the gun has nothing to do with it. The presence of the gun is about as relevant as whether or not the OP was wearing a ballcap. Trespassing is about whether or not your presence is in contravention of established policy. It has little to do with what you are wearing on your person.
(Yes I am aware that in VA if you are asked to leave a place and refuse to, you are trespassing. That is especially trueif you are carrying.)
Instead, we see (based on the OP) the switch in questioning from trespassing to whether or not the OP was allowed to carry a gun. At the very least, it was heading to something inappropriate. At the worst, it was already into an illegalTerry stop.
les_aker
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
No. I don't even know you and I was very specific in my posting to address what you posted, not you. You however have a long history of trying to make anyone and anything that you disagree with into a topic about you. Wake up and smell the coffee: the world does not revolve around you, and no matter how many smiley faces you post it isn't ever going to.
LEO 229 wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
Are the any other circular arguments you'd like to make? Or are you finished chasing your tail to the amusement of all concerned here?
LEO 229 wrote:
No. I don't even know you and I was very specific in my posting to address what you posted, not you. You however have a long history of trying to make anyone and anything that you disagree with into a topic about you. Wake up and smell the coffee: the world does not revolve around you, and no matter how many smiley faces you post it isn't ever going to.
LEO 229 wrote:
No. Citizen has simply done what he does on a regular basis: cut to the core issues and identify the places wherethe rights of someone open carrying were or were about to be infringed by an LEO.
LEO 229 wrote:
It's pretty obvious that encounters like this have absolutely nothing do to with "educating the customer". That dog stopped hunting a long time ago. The fact that you somehow think you can even go back to it says more than I think you realize.
LEO 229 wrote:
There goes that "educating the customer" dodge right out the window. No ID was required to educate anyone. The officer stepped right over the bounds. It wasn't just declined. It was made clear to the officer that the OP knew his rights and wasn't going to play the cop game by the usual cop approved rules.
Are the any other circular arguments you'd like to make? Or are you finished chasing your tail to the amusement of all concerned here?
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
More straw man arguments--twisting what I said and arguing against that instead of what was actually said.
I never declared he was seized.
The original post of mine on this thread that triggered LEO229 distinctly said IFa certain condition was present, then a seizure was ATTEMPTED. (emphasis added).
If LEO229 is going to "continue to debate with" me, perhaps he can at least debate the actual subject under discussion.
LEO 229 wrote:
More straw man arguments--twisting what I said and arguing against that instead of what was actually said.
I never declared he was seized.
The original post of mine on this thread that triggered LEO229 distinctly said IFa certain condition was present, then a seizure was ATTEMPTED. (emphasis added).
If LEO229 is going to "continue to debate with" me, perhaps he can at least debate the actual subject under discussion.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
Oh, me too!
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
NOW! After pages of evasions and straw man arguments, we're getting somewhere.
Thank you for the concession, LEO229.
There you have it folks.Finally LEO229 is in the vicinity of the actual point. And he's no longer saying "tone of voice" is not an indication of a seizure.He's conceding that it can give thecitizen the impression he is not free to go.
Just as a sort of QFT, here wasLEO229s initial response to my first post in this thread:
LEO 229 wrote:
NOW! After pages of evasions and straw man arguments, we're getting somewhere.
Thank you for the concession, LEO229.
There you have it folks.Finally LEO229 is in the vicinity of the actual point. And he's no longer saying "tone of voice" is not an indication of a seizure.He's conceding that it can give thecitizen the impression he is not free to go.
Just as a sort of QFT, here wasLEO229s initial response to my first post in this thread:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
Lets try a different tack, shall we fellas. Lets see if he will answer one simple question. With no evasions. No going off on tangents. No twisting my argument into something it wasn't. No changing the context from the current discussion. Just a simple answer to a simple question.
LEO229,
Are you saying it is lawful for a police officer toinvoluntarily stop and involuntarily hold a person for a brief period of time under any and allcircumstances, even with no reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime was, is, or is about to be committed, just to be certain the person is not doing something wrong?
LEO 229 wrote:
Lets try a different tack, shall we fellas. Lets see if he will answer one simple question. With no evasions. No going off on tangents. No twisting my argument into something it wasn't. No changing the context from the current discussion. Just a simple answer to a simple question.
LEO229,
Are you saying it is lawful for a police officer toinvoluntarily stop and involuntarily hold a person for a brief period of time under any and allcircumstances, even with no reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime was, is, or is about to be committed, just to be certain the person is not doing something wrong?