Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 110

Thread: Defendant had right to walk away from approaching Police officer

  1. #1
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Post imported post

    Defendant had right to walk away from approaching officer

    From the opinion:

    Jones refused to heed the officer's requests to stop. However, citizens who are not under arrest or otherwise detained have every right to refuse or ignore requests from law enforcement officers. "[W]hen an officer, without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, approaches an individual, the individual has a right to ignore the police and go about his business." Id. at 125 (citing Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 103 S. Ct. 1319, 75 L. Ed. 2d 229 (1983)). Moreover, a "'refusal to cooperate, without more, does not furnish the minimal level of objective justification needed for a detention or seizure.'" Id. (quoting Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437, 111 S. Ct. 2382, 115 L. Ed. 2d 389 (1991)). That was precisely what occurred here.
    As the blog noted:


    The state's argument here proved too much. It wants to be able to say that a person had a right to refuse a purely consensual encounter with the officer, but then require the defendant to not walk away.
    Thus, the seizure of the .45 caliber gun was illegal. The court affirms your right to refuse consent AND to walk away.

    Jones v. Commonwealth, 2008 Va. App. LEXIS 561 (December 23, 2008)

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Well, that's a switch. You hear of cases in which a defendant is arrested for no valid reason, and then charged with resisting arrest. Scary.

  3. #3
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Maybe I'm just dumb... if I am outside, even near my house, and a police officer is approaching me at a relatively high rate of speed (in this case the officer was on a bike), and he/she starts yelling at me to STOP, I very well am going to stop, because I would be afraid that if I did not stop, I'm about to be SHOT!

    What normal citizen would react in any other way? Am I supposed to yell back "Am I being DETAINED?"

    Crazy!

    TFred


  4. #4
    Regular Member ProShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
    Posts
    4,671

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    Maybe I'm just dumb... if I am outside, even near my house, and a police officer is approaching me at a relatively high rate of speed (in this case the officer was on a bike), and he/she starts yelling at me to STOP, I very well am going to stop, because I would be afraid that if I did not stop, I'm about to be SHOT!

    What normal citizen would react in any other way? Am I supposed to yell back "Am I being DETAINED?"

    Crazy!

    TFred
    Oh you have no idea!

    I had times where people just flat out walked away. Their excuse?

    "I didn't think you were talking to ME!"
    James Reynolds

    NRA Certified Firearms Instructor - Pistol, Shotgun, Home Firearms Safety, Refuse To Be A Victim
    Concealed Firearms Instructor for Virginia, Florida & Utah permits.
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    Sabre Red Pepper Spray Instructor
    Glock Certified Armorer
    Instructor Bio - http://proactiveshooters.com/about-us/

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    What normal citizen would react in any other way? Am I supposed to yell back "Am I being DETAINED?"
    We're not normal citizens.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    I'd probably end up stopping out of habit. If I'm on foot I'm not in a hurry, so I'll generally stop to talk to anyone who wants to talk. Granted, a LEO is not likely wanting to shoot the s**t, but like I said. It's a habit.

  7. #7
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    ProShooter wrote:
    TFred wrote:
    Maybe I'm just dumb... if I am outside, even near my house, and a police officer is approaching me at a relatively high rate of speed (in this case the officer was on a bike), and he/she starts yelling at me to STOP, I very well am going to stop, because I would be afraid that if I did not stop, I'm about to be SHOT!

    What normal citizen would react in any other way? Am I supposed to yell back "Am I being DETAINED?"

    Crazy!

    TFred
    Oh you have no idea!

    I had times where people just flat out walked away. Their excuse?

    "I didn't think you were talking to ME!"
    That's why this ruling seems so puzzling... apparently walking away despite your yelling at them to stop is perfectly acceptable behavior.

    TFred

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    Well I for one do not think you kids should talk to strangers.

    But this is an interesting opinion as it does remove a great deal of authority from a LEO, and place is squarely in the hands of the citizen. How could that have happened in our courts?

    Regards
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Just remember, you're not likely to know at the outset of an encounter whether the officer really does have RAS or not.

    Or, to directly address the thread title, the defendant may have had the right to walk away, but there is almost no way he could have correctly known at the time of the encounter that he had that right.

    If it comes across as a genuine request--a tone of voice that isn't authoritative or commanding/demanding, that's one thing. But any hint of authoritative/command/demand, I plan to comply. While refusing consent, of course.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    SNIP That's why this ruling seems so puzzling... apparently walking away despite your yelling at them to stop is perfectly acceptable behavior.
    You have to assemble the picture yourself. Its a little tricky sometimes.

    The opinion is really about the idea that the officer had no RAS to effect an involutary encounter/detention/stop/Terry Stop. Thus, the pat-down search was illegal. Thus, the gun was inadmissable.

    I've not come across an opinion that directly or expressly reconciles Hill (can't resist a detention)with being able to ignore a police officer when the citizen can haveno way or little chance to know whether the police officer actually has RAS. You sort of have to cobble it together from several cases.

    Thankfully Mendenhall expressly includestone of voice on the part of the officer as a possible circumstanceor sign of whether a reasonable person wouldfeel free to disregard an officer's inquiries and walk away.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    TFred wrote:
    SNIP That's why this ruling seems so puzzling... apparently walking away despite your yelling at them to stop is perfectly acceptable behavior.
    Thankfully Mendenhall expressly includestone of voice on the part of the officer as a possible circumstanceor sign of whether a reasonable person wouldfeel free to disregard an officer's inquiries and walk away.
    I like the idea that you are truly free if you can walk away from a cop who is trying to coerce consent, something of an oxymoron, I suppose.

    Suppose you are freely walking about, open-carrying. A cop, seeing the exposed gun, wants to talk to you. You don't. you keep walking. The cop asks/orders you to stop. You refuse.

    You are supposed to have that right. Yes, asserting your constitutional rights in the presence of a belligerent LEO can be dangerous. But ultimately, are we Sovereign, or are we Sheeple?

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Repeater wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    TFred wrote:
    SNIP That's why this ruling seems so puzzling... apparently walking away despite your yelling at them to stop is perfectly acceptable behavior.
    Thankfully Mendenhall expressly includestone of voice on the part of the officer as a possible circumstanceor sign of whether a reasonable person wouldfeel free to disregard an officer's inquiries and walk away.
    I like the idea that you are truly free if you can walk away from a cop who is trying to coerce consent, something of an oxymoron, I suppose.

    Suppose you are freely walking about, open-carrying. A cop, seeing the exposed gun, wants to talk to you. You don't. you keep walking. The cop asks/orders you to stop. You refuse.

    You are supposed to have that right. Yes, asserting your constitutional rights in the presence of a belligerent LEO can be dangerous. But ultimately, are we Sovereign, or are we Sheeple?

    I see your point.

    But, you have to include the other parts of the picture. If the copconsidershe's got RAS to involuntarily stop you, and you refuse, he'sgoing touse force to effect your temporary seizure.

    In VA, if you resist, you're in trouble. See Commonwealth vs Hill. Obstruction would be the least charge, I'm guessing. Assaulting a police officer, if you hit him.

    Yes, you have the right. But only if the court determines after the encounter that you had that right during the encounter. I think itsHill that discusses or quotes to the effect that close questionson this subject should not be fought-out on the streets, rather decided in the courtroom--meaning the court gets to decide.

    So, it may be moreaccurate to say, "You mighthave the right.Its just that youlikely won't know for sure until a court says youhad it during theencounter. And since you can't do a whole lot about it anyway withouttriggering a forceful response from the cop, and further resistanceafter that mightgetchargeswhen you might have gotten no charges by cooperating, you really havelittle or no way to safely exercise that rightduring an involuntaryencounter."



    Commonwealth vs Hill (look for case number1012526 when the search return page comes up. Itshould be near the top):

    http://www.courts.state.va.us/search...on&gflag=g


    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  13. #13
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Repeater wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    TFred wrote:
    SNIP That's why this ruling seems so puzzling... apparently walking away despite your yelling at them to stop is perfectly acceptable behavior.
    Thankfully Mendenhall expressly includestone of voice on the part of the officer as a possible circumstanceor sign of whether a reasonable person wouldfeel free to disregard an officer's inquiries and walk away.
    I like the idea that you are truly free if you can walk away from a cop who is trying to coerce consent, something of an oxymoron, I suppose.

    Suppose you are freely walking about, open-carrying. A cop, seeing the exposed gun, wants to talk to you. You don't. you keep walking. The cop asks/orders you to stop. You refuse.

    You are supposed to have that right. Yes, asserting your constitutional rights in the presence of a belligerent LEO can be dangerous. But ultimately, are we Sovereign, or are we Sheeple?
    I see your point.

    But, you have to include the other parts of the picture. If the copconsidershe's got RAS to involuntarily stop you, and you refuse, he'sgoing touse force to effect your temporary seizure.

    In VA, if you resist, you're in trouble. See Wescheler vs Commonwealth. Obstruction would be the least charge, I'm guessing. Assaulting a police officer, if you hit him.

    Yes, you have the right. But only if the court determines after the encounter that you had that right during the encounter. I think itsWescheler that discusses or quotes to the effect that close questionson this subject shouldn't be fought-out on the streets, rather decided in the courtroom--meaning the court gets to decide.

    So, it may be moreaccurate to say, "You mighthave the right.Its just that youlikely won't know for sure until a court says youhad it during theencounter. And since you can't do a whole lot about it anyway withouttriggering a forceful response from the cop, and further resistanceafter that mightgetchargeswhen the whole stop might have resulted in no charges, you really havelittle or no way to safely exercise that rightduring an involuntaryencounter."
    So pretty much as I was thinking all along, this is a completely useless decision as far as "real life" goes, and seems to reinforce the idea that some judges live in fantasy land.

    TFred

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Repeater wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    TFred wrote:
    SNIP That's why this ruling seems so puzzling... apparently walking away despite your yelling at them to stop is perfectly acceptable behavior.
    Thankfully Mendenhall expressly includestone of voice on the part of the officer as a possible circumstanceor sign of whether a reasonable person wouldfeel free to disregard an officer's inquiries and walk away.
    I like the idea that you are truly free if you can walk away from a cop who is trying to coerce consent, something of an oxymoron, I suppose.

    Suppose you are freely walking about, open-carrying. A cop, seeing the exposed gun, wants to talk to you. You don't. you keep walking. The cop asks/orders you to stop. You refuse.

    You are supposed to have that right. Yes, asserting your constitutional rights in the presence of a belligerent LEO can be dangerous. But ultimately, are we Sovereign, or are we Sheeple?
    The correct answer is B: we are not truly free, we are sheeple.

    From the very moment we decided government has a monopoly of force and can designate chosen members of society, give them badges, and make decisions to use force that ordinary citizens could never dream of.

    I hate to say it, but the logic leads me there. Give me a minute to put my asbestos suit on, please.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Repeater wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    TFred wrote:
    SNIP That's why this ruling seems so puzzling... apparently walking away despite your yelling at them to stop is perfectly acceptable behavior.
    Thankfully Mendenhall expressly includestone of voice on the part of the officer as a possible circumstanceor sign of whether a reasonable person wouldfeel free to disregard an officer's inquiries and walk away.
    I like the idea that you are truly free if you can walk away from a cop who is trying to coerce consent, something of an oxymoron, I suppose.

    Suppose you are freely walking about, open-carrying. A cop, seeing the exposed gun, wants to talk to you. You don't. you keep walking. The cop asks/orders you to stop. You refuse.

    You are supposed to have that right. Yes, asserting your constitutional rights in the presence of a belligerent LEO can be dangerous. But ultimately, are we Sovereign, or are we Sheeple?
    The correct answer is B: we are not truly free, we are sheeple.

    From the very moment we decided government has a monopoly of force and can designate chosen members of society, give them badges, and make decisions to use force that ordinary citizens could never dream of.

    I hate to say it, but the logic leads me there. Give me a minute to put my asbestos suit on, please.
    No asbestos required as you are basically correct.

    However I would point out that you guys are over thinking this a bit.

    There you are walking down the street in normal OC mode. A LEO shouts to you from across the street, "Hey buddy, come her I want to talk to you a minute." You ignore him and keep walking. SO now what happens.

    Either the LEO will just let you go or he won't. If he decides to stop you, he is not going to just start shooting at you as he has no grounds for application of deadly force. SO if he wants to stop you he will have to approach you and probably block your path. At that point you can either go around or stop and talk. If you attempt to go around and he still wants to talk, he will have to lay hands on you or obstruct you in some way, and technically that would be an arrest. He darn well better have a charge in mind beyond "contempt of Cop" if he gets to that point according to this ruling.

    In that scenario you have done nothing to obstruct or apply force the the officer, and would not be subject to a charge on those grounds.

    In my view this decision lays the ground work for a lot of confrontations with LEOs unless and until they get the idea that walking away from them can be legal.

    All of this is of course predicated on the concept that YOU know you have done nothing wrong and you have done nothing that a reasonable person might THINK is wrong. Now lets be real here. DO you really think Danbus is going to get away with walking away from a LEO? I did not think so.

    Regards
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    The correct answer is B: we are not truly free, we are sheeple.

    From the very moment we decided government has a monopoly of force and can designate chosen members of society, give them badges, and make decisions to use force that ordinary citizens could never dream of.

    I hate to say it, but the logic leads me there. Give me a minute to put my asbestos suit on, please.
    I know what other website you read :-p



  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Hawkflyer wrote:
    Tomahawk wrote:
    Repeater wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    TFred wrote:
    SNIP That's why this ruling seems so puzzling... apparently walking away despite your yelling at them to stop is perfectly acceptable behavior.
    Thankfully Mendenhall expressly includestone of voice on the part of the officer as a possible circumstanceor sign of whether a reasonable person wouldfeel free to disregard an officer's inquiries and walk away.
    I like the idea that you are truly free if you can walk away from a cop who is trying to coerce consent, something of an oxymoron, I suppose.

    Suppose you are freely walking about, open-carrying. A cop, seeing the exposed gun, wants to talk to you. You don't. you keep walking. The cop asks/orders you to stop. You refuse.

    You are supposed to have that right. Yes, asserting your constitutional rights in the presence of a belligerent LEO can be dangerous. But ultimately, are we Sovereign, or are we Sheeple?
    The correct answer is B: we are not truly free, we are sheeple.

    From the very moment we decided government has a monopoly of force and can designate chosen members of society, give them badges, and make decisions to use force that ordinary citizens could never dream of.

    I hate to say it, but the logic leads me there. Give me a minute to put my asbestos suit on, please.
    No asbestos required as you are basically correct.

    However I would point out that you guys are over thinking this a bit.

    There you are walking down the street in normal OC mode. A LEO shouts to you from across the street, "Hey buddy, come her I want to talk to you a minute." You ignore him and keep walking. SO now what happens.

    Either the LEO will just let you go or he won't. If he decides to stop you, he is not going to just start shooting at you as he has no grounds for application of deadly force. SO if he wants to stop you he will have to approach you and probably block your path. At that point you can either go around or stop and talk. If you attempt to go around and he still wants to talk, he will have to lay hands on you or obstruct you in some way, and technically that would be an arrest. He darn well better have a charge in mind beyond "contempt of Cop" if he gets to that point according to this ruling.

    In that scenario you have done nothing to obstruct or apply force the the officer, and would not be subject to a charge on those grounds.

    In my view this decision lays the ground work for a lot of confrontations with LEOs unless and until they get the idea that walking away from them can be legal.

    All of this is of course predicated on the concept that YOU know you have done nothing wrong and you have done nothing that a reasonable person might THINK is wrong. Now lets be real here. DO you really think Danbus is going to get away with walking away from a LEO? I did not think so.

    Regards
    Good points, KungFuHawk-san.

    Also, we can useour opponent'sweight against him, as any good sensei would teach the youngest pupil. That is to say, use the government's own pronouncements against its agents. While at the same time falling correctly ourselves to avoid injury. Too bad for the agents if they have neithergood sensei, norgood sense---to read the rules and learn how to use them.

    Thus, when the opponent-agent first pushes, we step aside and let his weight carry him forward--we ignore his "request" (which he will surely call it later, a request).

    Then we help himlean beyondhis safe balance by getting him to declare or demonstrate that it is not a request. Mendenhall gives us the tool:given the totality of the circumstances, would a reasonable person feel free to disregard the officer's inquiries and walk away? Does he use an authoritative tone of voice? When asked why we are being detained, does he say something that indicates we are?

    And of course, we fall safely by not angering him--too much. Just enough that he makes mistakes. Says things that our voice-recorder picks up.

    And, to each illegal comment, we give him more rope: "Gosh, officer. I'm sorry. I didn't know I had to give you my ID? (in a state with no stop-and-identify statute, in an encounter with no genuine RAS).

    And then, after he smugly turns his back, thinking he has intimidated us and won, we launch the flying kick that takes his face off--a formal complaint or lawsuit.

    I'll end here with the martial arts metaphor. And say it plainly.

    If a police officer approaches me, his personnel file is in jeopardy. Each and every misstep will be the subject of a bullet-point in a formal complaint, if not a lawsuit. If I am going to be in legal jeopardy. He is going to be in career jeopardy, or financial jeopardy, or both.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    And Citizen snatches the fly from the air with the chopsticks!
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    [stuff]....If a police officer approaches me, his personnel file is in jeopardy. Each and every mistep will be the subject of a bullet-point in a formal complaint, if not a lawsuit. If I am going to be in legal jeopardy. He is going to be in career jeopardy, or financial jeopardy, or both.
    Wow, and I thought I needed the flame-proof suit. I try hard not to come off as "cop-bashing", but when confronted with questions like the one posed above you either speak your mind or shut up, and sometimes I can't shut up. Apparently you and I will see if misery really does love company. Hawk, you bring the Scotch, I'll bring the bourbon, and Citizen, up to you what you want to drink.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Hawkflyer wrote:
    SNIP In my view this decision lays the ground work for a lot of confrontations with LEOs unless and until they get the idea that walking away from them can be legal.
    Oh, it covers that I think:

    "Moreover, a refusal to cooperate, without more, does not furnish the minimum level of objective justification needed for a detention or seizure." (internal quotesand citations omitted). Jones vs Commonwealth, linked in the OP above.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    I have much the same problem you guys do.I am not allowedto just flash them and walk away unless it is official business. So I have to stand there and take it just like you do. Of course what happens later may be a completely different matter. I like to think of it as training.

    Regards
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Hawkflyer wrote:
    SNIP I like to think of it as training.

    Regards
    The training sensei would say, "You are not strong in your support of Liberty! You are weak! Give me fifty push-ups!"


    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Tomahawk wrote:
    Citizen wrote:
    [stuff]....If a police officer approaches me, his personnel file is in jeopardy. Each and every mistep will be the subject of a bullet-point in a formal complaint, if not a lawsuit. If I am going to be in legal jeopardy. He is going to be in career jeopardy, or financial jeopardy, or both.
    Wow, and I thought I needed the flame-proof suit. I try hard not to come off as "cop-bashing", but when confronted with questions like the one posed above you either speak your mind or shut up, and sometimes I can't shut up. Apparently you and I will see if misery really does love company. Hawk, you bring the Scotch, I'll bring the bourbon, and Citizen, up to you what you want to drink.

    Thank you!

    High praise indeed. You made my evening.

    I'd never really posted the full intention before. Figuring it was maybe a little too hot.

    Its really just one step beyond defensive verbal tactics in a police encounter.

    It just occurred to me one day that if the police can use various sneaky conversational tactics to get me to incriminate myself, or try to get me to waive my 5A right to silence, or waive my 4A right to refuse consent,there was no reason I couldn't play that way in return.

    So, instead of just invoking my rights, I plan to play along, pretend meekness, give them rope, ask them questions--meekly--to get them to confirm some illegal point.

    And why not? Why not find out whether he is a good cop or not? And why not gather enough evidence that his willingness to step over the line is irrefutable, or that he in fact was stepping over the line?

    For example, to expand on the ID, theme,I no longer plan to withold myID. Heh, heh, heh. Go ahead and demand it, copper. I dare you. I'll just say, "Uh, yes officer. I'll comply with your demand. I...uh...don't think I should consent to this...I don't consent to it...but you're making an official sounding demand...so, even though I don't consent...I don't want to experience you taking it forcefully...here it is." Even if he has RAS and there is a stop-and-identify ordinance in his locality, I've got him on that point. Gotcha, you son-of-a-(bleeptch). Of course, he's gonna know my name once the formal complaint or lawsuit lands, anyway. And this totally bypasses the whole issue of me having to memorize which localities have stop-and-identify ordinances. So, this little piece of pie fits the saucer very nicely.

    I'm just taking it one step beyond protecting myself. I'm setting it up so I can fight back in support of rights after the encounter, not just for myself, but to make themunderstand they need to respect rights.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Sheriff wrote:
    I think you all need to read the last page....


    "Because the officer lacked adequate grounds to stop Jones, we hold that the trial court erred in denying Jones’ motion to suppress. Therefore, wereverse the decision of the trial court and remand for a new trial, if the Commonwealth be so advised.
    "All" is a pretty comprehensive term. But, I always hate being left out, anyway.

    You understand I addressed this point from another angle.

    And we're trying to fit this decision's holding and rationale into 1) the bigger picture of rights, and 2) tactics during police encounters.

    I personally wasn't planning to write a note to the Commonwealth advising them about a new trial, one way or another.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Dumfries, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    243

    Post imported post

    Sheriff wrote:
    I think you all need to read the last page....


    "Because the officer lacked adequate grounds to stop Jones, we hold that the trial court erred in denying Jones’ motion to suppress. Therefore, wereverse the decision of the trial court and remand for a new trial, if the Commonwealth be so advised."
    I might be lost too...

    Isn't this a 'win' for us? Assuming you are a person like me that refuses to identify myself this is more fodder for supporting/proving the validity of the point of refusing.

    The court said that we don't have to stop - we don't even have to acknowledge the officer attempting to stop us. If the officer chooses to attempt to stop you without having proper RAS then - atleast in Virginia - he could potentially be committing assault on you.

    Am I missing something?

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •