Accosted for open carry in Milwaukie, OR

imported post

So 6a should work (labor pains = public event)
Also as long as you are talking to the wife, the 6c meeting.
Myself I also have the (home schooling as classes are always in session)

But most of all.... 5A - He did threaten your life, a felony can be recorded.:what:

You might even try to argue 5C, that by shooting the tazer into the cop he is deploying it.
Not the way he may want to but is involved in the deployment while on duty.

Maybe a nice bumper sticker informing all persons approaching the car are consenting to recordings.

imported post

SlackwareRobert wrote:

So 6a should work (labor pains = public event)
Also as long as you are talking to the wife, the 6c meeting.
Myself I also have the (home schooling as classes are always in session)

But most of all.... 5A - He did threaten your life, a felony can be recorded.:what:

You might even try to argue 5C, that by shooting the tazer into the cop he is deploying it.
Not the way he may want to but is involved in the deployment while on duty.

Maybe a nice bumper sticker informing all persons approaching the car are consenting to recordings.

Click to expand...

I've thought about a shirt or hat that says "You are being audio recorded." A bumper or window sticker would be good, too for traffic stops.Remember, the only requirement is notification, not consent.

A big fear of mineis telling an officer that I'm audio recording the conversation then they (wrongly) decide I can't do that. Why is ignorance of the law no excuse for us, but LEOs can get away with it scott-free?

...Orygunner...

imported post

grishnav wrote:

What is a conversation? A conversation is defined as "oral communications between two or more persons" (paraphrasing here). What are "oral communications"? We're left to guess, as there is no definition in Chapter 165.

Click to expand...

Actually we are not left to guess at all. While one may argue as you have that a statute somewhere else that appears to define should control I think you will not get very far with that.

Oregon has a wonderful case (sometimes) called PGE v. BOLI that in very loose paraphrase means that the words of the legislature are to be given their plain clear everyday meaning. Oral communications has a pretty standard plain clear everyday meaning of two people talking to each other. And that is even more clear when read in context of the rest of the statute talking about "Radio"and "Telephone" and "Video" forms of communication.

Now you look at the definition you want to use, which starts out:

133.721 Definitions for ORS 41.910 and 133.721 to 133.739. As used in ORS 41.910 and 133.721 to 133.739, unless the context requires otherwise:

Click to expand...

I don't think there is any plain reading of that statute that in any way implies that one of those definitions is intended to apply to ORS 165... as it very clearly limits itself to a specific set of statutes.

-adamsesq

imported post

Orygunner wrote:

SlackwareRobert wrote:
A big fear of mineis telling an officer that I'm audio recording the conversation then they (wrongly) decide I can't do that. Why is ignorance of the law no excuse for us, but LEOs can get away with it scott-free?

...Orygunner...

Click to expand...

That is why you use a second recorder, you are not required to tell the leo that
he only grabbed the primary recorder.
This is why I am workng on putting one in my handgrip, they will never even think
to look there, and should get some great audio while it is in 'custody'.
Making a fake mag with contacts to make the connection for downloading
data, as any pigtail would give it away and interfere with the primary function.

I am now learning the fun of video, and it's a whole new ball game for that.
But I will eventually crack it so I can add the pictures. Of course which
way do you point the lens? These 360 view ones are way to large to hide.
Of course I do need to find out about infrared video for night time use,
I feel this is more important than color at this time. Haven't looked at the
byte size for infrared, but I think it would be small like b&w.

Fortunatly AL is a one side only needs to know, but I do get around and need to worry about
less enlightened places.

imported post

adamsesq wrote:

grishnav wrote:

What is a conversation? A conversation is defined as "oral communications between two or more persons" (paraphrasing here). What are "oral communications"? We're left to guess, as there is no definition in Chapter 165.

Click to expand...

Actually we are not left to guess at all. While one may argue as you have that a statute somewhere else that appears to define should control I think you will not get very far with that.

Oregon has a wonderful case (sometimes) called PGE v. BOLI that in very loose paraphrase means that the words of the legislature are to be given their plain clear everyday meaning. Oral communications has a pretty standard plain clear everyday meaning of two people talking to each other. And that is even more clear when read in context of the rest of the statute talking about "Radio"and "Telephone" and "Video" forms of communication.

Click to expand...

If the plain everyday meaning of "oral communications" is "two people talking," then why is there a separate definition for conversation? And if the conversation requires two people exchanging oral communications, then isn't the requirement for a "conversation" then 4 people talking, at least?

Or is the "plain everyday" meaning of "oral communications" something else... more like one person, making an utterance, perhaps with an expectation that it not be recorded... and thereby a conversation can be two people making these utterances toward each other...

I mean, in all seriousness, I don't expect that conversations I have wondering around the city are private unless I take specific means, such as whispering in the other persons ear, to make them so. Isn't that pretty much everyone's understanding?

You're right that my theory probably won't go very far, but I find it interesting that the attorneys that drafted memos and flowcharts for PPD to follow, both in 1991 and again just a few months ago, pulled out more or less the exact language that I'm referring to. I'd be curious as to your thoughts.

Also, if the plain, everyday meaning isn't clear (you seem to have a different idea of what Oral Communications means than even what 165 implies without considering 133), and the law happens to define the words elsewhere, doesn't it make sense that they would control?

imported post

SlackwareRobert wrote:

That is why you use a second recorder, you are not required to tell the leo that
he only grabbed the primary recorder.

Click to expand...

Another subtlety: An appeals court (IIRC) ruled, in a case where a police officer told a suspect that their conversation was being monitored, which the suspect did not understand to mean "recorded," that you only had to provide the information (that you were recording) to be in compliance with the law; the person you were giving it do didn't necessarily need to understand it.

Which is why Mike and I have been practicing giving the warning in Latin...

imported post

LOL....
Now how do you sign it in latin for the deaf. :lol:
The leo will never get a judge to agree they never looked at your hands
during the stop.

imported post

I thought about saying "I am obtaining the content of this conversation."while tapping my temple, immediately followed up by a non-related question. Maybe it would confuse and misdirect them a little, but still inform them as required by law, and maybe they wouldn't take my recorder.

I still like the idea of TWO recorders. I plan on using that, I have my cell phone that's two button presses away from the voice recorder, and my pocket pc that's one button and a screen click away from recording, too. If I have the time to start them both before an encounter, I will.

...Orygunner...

imported post

I am recording this conversation.

EGO sum effingo is sermo. Latin

Ich bin Legung dieses Gespräch. German

Est is forensis ut patefacio veho a ballista?

(Is it legal to open carry a catapult?)



Yes, I have had too much coffee..

Es ist mein völliger Ernst , hast gehabt zuviel Kaffee.

Rev. J

imported post

That is why you use a second recorder, you are not required to tell the leo that
he only grabbed the primary recorder.

Click to expand...

Don't even bother. Go to the store, spend 20 bucks on one of those prepaid tracphones with 100 minutes, add another $30 or so worth of minutes (enough that the battery runs dead before you run out), and then put something like Porc 411 on speed dial. Be sure you can get a phone that you can lock with a code while in a call.

imported post

is this true? does anyone have a name of a gun rights attorney in portland

_______________________________________________________________

Bob,

I'd like an update on what progress your inquiry has made.

**************


_______________________________________________________________

[align=left]Mr.. *********, personnel matters and the result of internal investigations are confidential by law. I anticipate that we maywant to interview you to obtain further details, beyond that we are precluded from sharing the results or conclusions ofthat inquiry. My earlier reply to you was to acknowledge receipt of your communication.[/align] Bob Jordan
Chief of Police
Milwaukie Police Department
3200 S.E. Harrison St.
Milwaukie, OR 97222
(503) 786-7405
jordanr@ci.milwaukie.or.us
_______________________________________________________________

imported post

JBURGII wrote:

(Is it legal to open carry a catapult?)

Click to expand...

It better be or I broke the law back in '73 :celebrate:celebrate

Not only oc'd it, but (gasp) I took it to SCHOOL.
Just be warned, even unloaded when cocked you will crush anything in the
way of the arm if released, they have extreme potential energy.

imported post

Not to be argumentitive, but I'm kinda with the LE with the issue of the gun, even after you show your permit.

I'm not LE, but if I were and walked up to a car, didn't know the people, saw a gun, the owner showed a permit, I'd still take a defensive stance. I'd be thinking; this nice lawabiding guy could easily shoot me, for what ever reason. The police deal with a lot of odd people and they can't take anything for granted.

Regarding the to threat of gun to the head; they were way out of line!

Chris

imported post

Thecarguy wrote:

Not to be argumentitive, but I'm kinda with the LE with the issue of the gun, even after you show your permit.

I'm not LE, but if I were and walked up to a car, didn't know the people, saw a gun, the owner showed a permit, I'd still take a defensive stance. I'd be thinking; this nice lawabiding guy could easily shoot me, for what ever reason. The police deal with a lot of odd people and they can't take anything for granted.

Regarding the to threat of gun to the head; they were way out of line!

Chris

Click to expand...

Hi Chris, welcome to OCDO!

When I was much younger, I used to have a very similar mindset. Anyone possessing a gun was suspect and that someonehaving a deadly weapon within reach was a risk to those around them. However, this was before I really understood some facts I would like to share with you.

Fact #1: The right to liberty, life, and the right of self-defense are inalienable rights thatALL people have. The right to keep and bear arms stems from those.

Fact # 2: The primary purpose of the government, laws, and law enforcement officers is not primarily to protect people, but to protect the RIGHTS of people.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." - The Declaration of Independence

Fact # 3: Law-abiding citizens that carry firearms for self-protection or other lawful purposes are NOT a danger to others (except criminals)or to law enforcement officers.

Fact #4: Criminals that are a danger to others or to law-enforcement are NOT going to follow the law, and are NOT going to wear their firearm in plain view.

I challenge you to consider those facts (or even challenge them if you think I'm wrong), then review the OP story and see if the officers involved may be a little out of touch about exactly what their proper place is, overstepped their boundary in infringing on the OP's rights, and way out of line in what they reportedly said to the OP? ESPECIALLY since the firearm issue occurred after they had already run his identification and determined he had no criminal record!

It almost seems to me that the LEOs in the story have adopted the "Us vs. them" mentality where everyone is a potential criminal, instead of the public servant attitude where everyone has rights they are supposed to respect and protect.

...Orygunner...

imported post

It is a two way street, I don't know the leo either, and he already has his hand on his weapon.
This is not going to make me all kissy kissy towards him, and makes me go on the defensive.

Now when they keep the criminals locked up, and route out bad leo's.
Then we can discuss appropriate disarmament during encounters.
I have tried to get a photo id of all officers so I can check that they are real poilce,
and guess what. Denied!
So as long as I can't verify who you are, then we will both just have to live with being nervous.

imported post

Mr. Orygunner, Thanks for the welcome!

I agree with all the points you state. But they still don’t address the issue of an officer walking up to a car, talking to the car owner and then seeing a gun sitting in the console.

I went back and reread his first post, then remembered this is only one side of the story. Sometimes it can be hard to remember there are two sides. My thoughts now are; it almost looks as though he was testing the officer by not stating he had a gun there. If he’s smart enough to know the laws regarding carrying a gun concealed or not, he’s smart enough to know he should tell an officer there is a gun there. Just because he has a permit does not mean he didn’t hold up the corner store just a few minutes ago and they don’t know it yet. And we all could come up with more excuses what could have happened, but the officers still have to take precautions. The second officer was doing just what she should have imo, covering the gun and the passenger. If he was doing the test, I guess he found out what would happen. And the threat of pointing the gun at his head might be something of one side.

Before making this post I ran this past our oldest boy for his opinion of what he would do. He’s one of our counties finest. His take was just a bit different to start. He would have seen the gun, yelled gun to his partner if he had one, which he doesn’t. He would have told the driver to put his hands on the wheel right now and the passenger to put theirs on the dash. Told them, make one move towards that gun in any way and I WILL shoot you. Then he said considering he was interrupting, I would think he’s a cop hatter and I’ll react as such.


Mr. Slack,

I respect your opinion. But you may not live if you made a move towards that gun when you were told not too. And I would bet the officers would come out clean since you were warned and they are in a superior position.


How’s that for a second post? LOLOLOL

I’m really not trying to start something, just giving another side. The debate can be fun, if it turns to a fight, I’ll just edit out.

Chris

imported post

i would've sued your boy. had his job and a ton of money from the city and him personally.

and i'm considering legal action against this officer right now.

i wasn't testing anyone, just exercising my rights.

as far as i'm concerned if your boy was killed by someone in a situation where he started shooting an innocent person who he made up a story about the person reaching for his gun i would consider it self defense and justified.

imported post

ocman1991A1 wrote:

"i would've sued your boy. had his job and a ton of money from the city and him personally.

and i'm considering legal action against this officer right now.

i wasn't testing anyone, just exercising my rights."

as far as i'm concerned if your boy was killed by someone in a situation where he started shooting an innocent person who he made up a story about the person reaching for his gun i would consider it self defense and justified.

Click to expand...

You would have sued him for what? Telling you to put your hands on the wheel when you had a gun within a seconds reach and he had no clue who you were, interesting. It's probably just me, but I don't think that would hold up, maybe it would but I don't think so.

Click to expand...

Sounds like you were testing your rights to me.

Click to expand...

Lets get it straight; no story made up. He warns you to not move towards the gun, you make the move, then he shoots. I would expect nothing less from any officer.

Click to expand...

Chris

Click to expand...

imported post

sieg heil

i'm glad you and your boy are anti-american and anti-freedom

imported post

i should be able to do anything i want anytime i want for my safety. citizens doesn't matter.

i really like thecarguy. heroes like me and your son know best. peon citizens gross me out