I was arrested by El Cajon PD today...

grumpycoconut · Mar 3, 2009

imported post

Oh No! Citizen has discovered the vast governmental conspiracy that is 849PC. The ultimate legal ass covering. How dare the government give itself the means of cleaning up/ covering upafter itself when it evil agents wrongfully arrest / harass some poor law abiding citizen.

Take 2. The state has realized that there are times when its agentstakea personin to custodyand then upon studying the situation in greater depth, realize that probable cause to support a criminal prosecution against the persondoes not exist. Rather thandragging the personbefore a magistrate with an unsupportable case, wasting everyone's time and resources (including the person in custody) the legislature (our regional benevolent overlords) has created a tool by which the person in custody can be sent back to his life without the stigma associated with having been "arrested".

I don't knowwhen 849PC was made law or if it has ever been challenged in court. Yes I'm too lazy to do the research. I can't see why someone would challenge a law that provides an innocent (term means nothing legally) person with the key to their freedom with a minimum of further fuss. And just in case you were about to holler that this absolves JBTs from responsibilty for real wrong doing, it doesn't. You can still seek redress from your government for harm done you.

Since you are in the Commonwealth of Virginia and are not subject to the laws of the State of California, you might want to check your own laws to find out if your own gubmint has left themselvesan evil back door similar to this. What is a commonwealth anyway? Being a state isn't good enough for ya?

Confession Alert!!! Dirty dark gubmint secret follows.

Sometimes cops use 849(b) for sneaky tactical reasons. Say you have probable cause or a warrant to arrest someone and you do it. And then you question them after admonishing them that they have the rights to an attorney and to remain silent. And then you decide for what ever reason that it serves your case better to let them run free for a little bit, like so they can help you gather evidence against a conspirator or some other such thing. And then you build a stronger case against them you can actually go back and arrest them again for the same crime without having to pay any mind to any silly double jeopardy laws (gratutitous legal red herring

). !!!And It's All Perfectly Legal!!!!

Citizen · Mar 3, 2009

imported post

grumpycoconut wrote:

SNIP Take 2. The state has realized that there are times when its agentstakea personin to custodyand then upon studying the situation in greater depth, realize that probable cause to support a criminal prosecution against the persondoes not exist.

Take 3 (translation): We the government would rather arrest people without bothering to be sure of ourprobable cause.

What the hell?Do you really expect ouragents to know the law well enough that they can tell which might be violated?And to knowenough about probable cause? Who do you think we are hiring here, college degrees?

Why, its much easier to blur the line between aminimally intrusive investigatory detention aka Terry Stop and an arrest. Christ, even though one of the express reasons fordetaining people involuntarily is to maintain the status quo while our agents investigate, and even though we can handcuff pretty much anybody who looks cross-eyed at us "for officer safety", why shouldwe be limited by what was left of the 4th Amendment? Just arrest everybody, then figure out the damn probable cause. Much simpler.

If you have any questions, please turn around, you are under arrest.

Citizen · Mar 3, 2009

imported post

grumpycoconut wrote:

SNIP Take 2. The state has realized that there are times when its agentstakea personin to custodyand then upon studying the situation in greater depth, realize that probable cause to support a criminal prosecution against the persondoes not exist. Rather thandragging the personbefore a magistrate with an unsupportable case, wasting everyone's time and resources (including the person in custody) the legislature (our regional benevolent overlords) has created a tool by which the person in custody can be sent back to his life without the stigma associated with having been "arrested".

Hmmmmm.

Does California law recognize a distinction between Terry Stops and arrests?

I ask because I have come across references here and there across time that implied that some states might consider any involuntary detention an arrest.

grumpycoconut · Mar 3, 2009

imported post

Citizen wrote:

grumpycoconut wrote:

SNIP Take 2. The state has realized that there are times when its agentstakea personin to custodyand then upon studying the situation in greater depth, realize that probable cause to support a criminal prosecution against the persondoes not exist.

Click to expand...

Take 3 (translation): We the government would rather arrest people without bothering to be sure of ourprobable cause.

What the hell?Do you really expect ouragents to know the law well enough that they can tell which might be violated?And to knowenough about probable cause? Who do you think we are hiring here, college degrees?

Why, its much easier to blur the line between aminimally intrusive investigatory detention aka Terry Stop and an arrest. Christ, even though one of the express reasons fordetaining people involuntarily is to maintain the status quo while our agents investigate, and even though we can handcuff pretty much anybody who looks cross-eyed at us "for officer safety", why shouldwe be limited by what was left of the 4th Amendment? Just arrest everybody, then figure out the damn probable cause. Much simpler.

If you have any questions, please turn around, you are under arrest.

It's about time you got the point. The government wants nothing more than to keep you in your place. Voting, rights and all that silly stuff you were fed growing up is just smoke, mirrors and candy to keep you blind to reality. I'll send you a citizen's self arrest form as soon as I can dig one up so that you can take the initiative and make sure that you keep yourself safe from any evil you might do to you.

Remember. Big Brother is watching you!

What's this? Who's at my door? No you can't come in!!! I demand to see the warrant!!!! I didn't do anything wrong!!!!! You cna't do ths to meee!!! I no my rites!!!! I demand a lawyer!!!!! Tel mi wife i love her.....

Nothing to see here citizens. Move along.

Citizen · Mar 3, 2009

imported post

grumpycoconut wrote:

SNIP I'll send you a citizen's self arrest form as soon as I can dig one up...

LOL!!

grumpycoconut · Mar 3, 2009

imported post

Citizen wrote:

LOL!!

I made Citizen LOL!

I hereby declare victory!!!!!

Hey LEO229 it is possible. HOPE!

grumpycoconut · Mar 3, 2009

imported post

[align=center][size=[font="Times New Roman"]Citizen's Self-Arrest Form[/font]][/size][/align]

Fill out this form, answering all questions completely. If you need additional space for a full confession, use a separate sheet of blank paper.

Name:

Aliases:

Address:

Phone Number:

Height:_______Weight:_______Eyes:______Hair: ______Race:_______

Scars, marks, tatoos:

Crime for which you are arresting yourself:

Plea (check one) [ ]Guilty [ ]Not Guilty [ ]No Contest

Motive (check one) [ ]Money [ ]Blackmail [ ]Emotional

[ ]Ideological [ ]Revenge [ ]Mental Instability

[ ]Romantic [ ]Other

Entanglement

1. Do not leave your residence.

2. Put any firearms or other potential weapons where you can't reach them.

3. Remove your belt and shoelaces.

4. Read the following statement aloud: "I am under arrest. I have the right to remain silent. Anything I say may be held against me. I have the right to have an attorney present before any questioning. If I can not afford an attorney one will be appointed for me by the court before any questioning.

5. The small square (left) contains a remarkable offshoot of military technology-an entire miniature Bible produced by laser micro printing. Place your left hand on the square and say aloud: "Under penalty of perjury, I swear that all of the information I have given on this form is true."

6. Using a stamp pad or ink soaked sponge or Kleenex, provide a preliminary set of fingerprints on the back of this form.

7. If you have a recent passport size photograph enclose it with this form. If you do not have a recent form but possess some artistic skill, draw a rough sketch of your appearance on a separate sheet of paper. Do Not sketch yourself wearing dark glasses or with a beard or mustache if you do not normally have one.

8. Sign and date this form and mail it, enclosing your passport, to: FBI, Washington, D.C., Attention: Arrest by Mail Program. You are authorized to make one trip to the mailbox for this purpose.

__________________________________________________________________________

Copy, paste and adjust format to suit your local LE agency. There is a bit of a backlog so be patient. The paddy wagon will get there as soon as it can.

Citizen · Mar 3, 2009

imported post

grumpycoconut wrote:

Citizen wrote:

LOL!!

Click to expand...

I made Citizen LOL!

I hereby declare victory!!!!!

Hey LEO229 it is possible. HOPE!

I'll give you a double victory if you can turn up the answer to that question I asked about California recognizing a distinction between Terry Stops and arrests.

If California law, say a court opinion somewhere, held that any involuntary detention was tantamount to an arrest, then such a statute would almost have to follow.

Citizen · Mar 3, 2009

imported post

grumpycoconut wrote:

[align=center][size=[font="Times New Roman"]Citizen's Self-Arrest Form[/font]][/align]

ROFLMAO!!

That was good.

No fair!! I always sketch myself with dark glasses and beard!!

grumpycoconut · Mar 3, 2009

imported post

California, just like the rest of the country, recognizes Terry. A detention is a temporary measure in which a person's freedom of movement is impeded based on reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be taking place and that the person detained may be involved in it. Authority to arrest is defined in the California penal code under 836PC et seq.and is based on probable cause (a collection of facts leading a reasonable person to believe that a crime was committed and that the person in question did it) or an order from a judge (warrant, also based on PC).

An arrest becomes an arrest when the subject either submits or is subdued. No I'm not going to look up the PC section that gives cops the authority to use force to effect an arrest. Case law also says that a detention can become an arrest when detention (restriction of self directed freedom of movement) is combined with substantial (no real definition of substantial exists) movement directed by the PoPo.

As for "involuntary detention", detention is by definition involuntary. If you stop by yourself and staywhere you are because you decided to or were too ignorant to know that you didn't have to there is no detention, there is a consensual encounter. If you refuse consent and are told you must stay, you have been detained. It's only law. It ain't rocket science.

Citizen · Mar 3, 2009

imported post

grumpycoconut wrote:

SNIP California, just like the rest of the country, recognizes Terry...

Thanks.

I agree. Involuntary detention is redundant. Shoulda said involuntary encounter or some such, involuntary being the important part.

cato · Mar 3, 2009

imported post

AnyUOC "detention" beyond the loaded check (of dubious constitutionality in and of itself) and absent normal R/S to detain for investigationor PC to arrest or any demandfor ID/or serial number for a stolen check again absent RS/PC,is certainly actionable via USC 42-1883 for a 4th A violation (and comming soon - a 2nd A violation).

PC 849 notwithstanding

:celebrate

lovenme · Mar 5, 2009

imported post

I was glad to see you respond. I already knew you were not a LEO due to a couple statements in your story. I am also glad to see that I was right when I guessed you to be a security officer.1st: when you said you Miranda rights were not read to you then and there. Well, if you actually know anything about real police work then you would know that Miranda is not necessary unless you are going to be questionedafter you are detained. According to your story they did not ask you any questions about the incident until youarrived atthe police station. 2nd: For the people who are trying to use 12031 to justify carrying an open firearm, if you read a little bit further you will see that 12031(e) states that LEO's are allowed to make sure the firearm is not loaded. This is ,"CASE LAW." Which people keep trying to use in furtharance of their argument. Although I dont think they should have transported you to the station I also understand that the California Penal code is rather large and you can't expect any one person to memorize it. I am sure that other people on this site will disagree with that and say the Officer's should know everything. Well I can't say much for them but maybe you are perfect and I wish I could be you. It is interesting to me that you use this cloud of doing the same job but yet you try to condemn and officer that is doing theirs. A security officers job is not even close to a police officer's job. Maybe you should try out for the academy and see if you feel the same after being a cop for a few years. You did try to sell yourself as a, "SEASONED VETERAN." Or did I read that wrong. And that was after you called him a rookie even though you know nothing about doing his job. I am sure all the people that you say you grew up with around that departmen are laughing at you aftermaking a fool of yourself.There is a reason you did not tell them what you do because you are not a cop like you tried to sell yourself as.

lovenme · Mar 5, 2009

imported post

giaking70 wrote:

No, you made it sound like you were a cop throughout the entire story. Quit trying to back track now. There is no such thing as an off duty security guard. To be a police officer you have Peace Officer status which means you are a cop 24hrs a day. Which means you can say you are off duty when you are not in uniform and on the streets in a patrol car. You can never say that.With whatever experience you think you have. I am here to tell you that one year on the street as a real police officer is more experience than your entire SECURITY career. I am new to this and I did not know how the quote thing worked so go look for my post and you will get more on how I feel about your story. I am not saying your story is not true so quit trying to tell it like you are a cop cause you are not.

"I merely said veteran off duty officer as not to imply a LEO as one would think".

what I meant to say by this is that some of the guys that work for ECPD have not been working as LEO very long. I know most of them by happen stance and through working in various parts of the local area. A lot of them I knew in school or had worked with them at prior jobs. I feel I have more experience under my belt than most of them do and when that one in particular asked me if I had been arrested and said he has arrested me before, just didn't have a damned clue. He was a total rookie and I could tell he was. I was working my first security job when he was probably still rummaging through cabinets after learning to walk in search of something to "drink".

So please pardon my usage of that term, just wanted to clarify that.

grumpycoconut · Mar 5, 2009

imported post

Hey Lovenme,

Cut the guy some slack. You are beating a dead horse that's already been beaten enough.

I'm not sure what your point was about 12031 and "case law". Please expand and clarify.

lovenme · Mar 5, 2009

imported post

ShotgunWilly wrote:

WOW!! Although i wrote a long enty also, I could not have said it better. Why dont these people just get a CCW and carry a firearm for its purpose instead of waisting cops time. Why carry an open unloaded firearm. I would love to see what they would do if it was needed. Good stuff!

First let’s address the issue with this “seasoned veteran off duty officer” statement. A security guard is far from a Law Enforcement Officer. Just because security guards are often referred to as “Rent a Cops”, doesn’t make you a cop. You are obviously a security guard that lives in a fantasy world calling himself a “seasoned veteran off duty officer” in an attempt at making people believe you are a LEO because you weren’t able to get hired as a LEO. It might be because you didn’t have the required aptitude, lacked the physical fitness, or couldn’t pass the background because you have done stupid crap like this before. Your previous comment “As far as I am concerned, its one in the same depending how you hold yourself up and your attitude” [/i]is just a ridiculous statement. Everyone knows that a genuine LEO wouldn’t put his fellow brothers into such a precarious situation in such a weak ass attempt to justify their own selfish agenda. It’s pretty clear how you “hold yourself and your attitude”!

I really loved the following comment, “No, I am not a sworn in peace officer but rather a security officer. However, the job classification is described on paper as law enforcement cause we issue official court documented citations just like any sworn in peace officer...its a grey area I know and I cant explain it beyond that scope”.[/i] Does that mean if I write down on a piece of paper that I am Superman, that I can call myself Superman and suddenly I have x-ray vision and that I am bullet proof? Whatever piece of paper you wrote that you are law enforcement on, you should tear that up because being a transit ticket taker is NOT law enforcement.

Let’s address the actual issue at hand here. First you say you weren’t looking for a confrontation. So going into a “busy retailer” with a firearm strapped to your side and additional magazines on your belt and you don’t think that’s going to cause any concerns for shoppers? You entered the store with a recorder on because you obviously intended for the cops to be called. You certainly weren’t there to exercise your right to OC for your safety, you were there to cause a scene and bait the cops into coming over and have to deal with some idiot walking around with a gun on his side. And people complain when it takes cops so long to respond to legitimate calls, it’s because the world is full of fruit loops like this guy looking for attention.

GiaKing writes:

“I know my spelling grammar was off but it was because of my excitement that I wanted to share this incident so badly with everyone that I had forgotten to do spell check. “[/i]

So why were you so excited to share this incident so badly? Was it because you wanted embarrass the officers from a department where you claim to know most of them from “happen stance and working in various parts of the local area”? According to your posting there were 5 different officers involved. Yet none of your posting or transcription indicates any of them saying they “know” you.So really how true is the statement that you “know most of them”. Were these the only 5 officers in the department that you just happen to not know? If you know so many of these cops at this department, why didn’t you sit down and talk to them about OC and the right to OC before running around the mall wasting the cops and your time? If you have so many friends there, wouldn’t you think educating them first would be the first course of action? Just like you like to call yourself a “seasoned veteran off duty officer”, you like to say you have friends that are cops, but in reality it’s just because you stamped their transit ticket you consider them friends.

Just like NMHasOpenCarry stated, the only thing this type of activity is going to do is cause the left wing politicians that you all have allowed to hold positions in your State’s government to eliminate the right to OC at all. Let’s ruin it for everyone by intentionally causing the police to respond to man with a gun calls because they think it will bring needed attention to their cause. It certainly will bring attention, but the kind of attention that hurts responsible gun owners. You should focus your time on furthering gun owner rights by joining legitimate organizations like the NRA. A responsible organization that protects gun rights by doing things the right way, by working (as best one can) with politicians and sponsoring or opposing bills.

I would hate to be a victim of a crime that the police couldn’t respond to in a timely manner because some idiot thought that wearing a gun on his side and walking into a mall was a good idea in a time where school shootings and mall shootings are prevalent and at an all time high. Police have to respond to these types of calls because they have an obligation to maintain public safety. Limited police resources, in a time of budget cuts and layoffs, being diverted to this type of activity only illustrates your selfishness and lack of concern for public safety. It’s only going to take one screw up on your part to make the wrong move when an officer is approaching you for the officer to think you are making a furtive movement towards your firearm and for an officer to smoke your ass. What good is your message when you’re dead???

Here’s an idea! Why don’t you get a CCW permit, carry your gun concealed and loaded in case you really do need it instead of intentionally wasting police resources, scaring mall patrons, and making yourself out to be someone you’re not! Who knows, carrying a concealed loaded firearm might make you feel like a seasoned veteran LEO, plus you can really impress the ladies with your concealed weapon! Well, maybe….

P.S. - We are all still waiting on the audiothat you claim you can't figure out how to load.

lovenme · Mar 5, 2009

imported post

giaking70 wrote:

So are you saying you carry a firearm for protection. If that is the case then you would get a CCW and carry a loaded weapon. I would hate to see the result if someone attacked you with a knife (a justifiable shooting situation) because they wanted the gun on your side and you could not protect yourself with it because it is not loaded. I believe in the right to own a firearm but if you are going to justify it due to crime then maybe you should have a loaded one concealed.

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

I thought some might appreciate this. .

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total
of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were
rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by
new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their
own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500
million dollars. The first year results are now in: List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults
are up 8.6 percent Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes,
44 percent)! In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms
are now up 300 percent. Note, that while the law-abiding citizens
turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their
guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in
armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the
past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is
unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of
the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public
safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was
expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The
Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians
disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens
save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only
the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! The next time
someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them
of this history lesson. With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we
are 'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew
most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message
to all of your friends.

I'd like to add that there was a recent story on TV about crime in England, and
how there was an alarming rise in the number of "knifing's" during the commission of crimes.
You may or may not know that not long ago, the Brits turned in their guns during a program
instituted by the government. So, with fewer guns out there, crime is committed with the next
available weapon. I have no doubt that if the knives are confiscated, there will be an alarming
rise in the number of clubbing or beatings with bats and clubs.

one of the many reasons I now Open Carry....

lovenme · Mar 5, 2009

imported post

grumpycoconut wrote:

marshaul wrote:

Speak for yourself.

OC > CC

What are your intentions? It can't be to use it if you need it. It seemsthat it isonly to speak out against the government. Why not another type of subject to speak out. Elitists? No, the people who carry concealed are the people who carry for a purpose, like to use it if they had to. None of the oc people can make an argument that they would be able to use it if needed. I have seen some of the fastest shooters in the world and even they could not get it loaded, aim and fire if they are being attacked. It is not about being ashamed, it is about having it when it is needed.

Damn Skippy. What are all of these concealed carry advocates ashamed of? An openly armed man isclear in his intentions. Concealed carriers are elitist slinkers and skulkers. That said, I do wear some outfits where open carry just wrecks the look.:?On second thought just imagine how much newwork there would be for custom leather artisans and gun smiths making fancy dress gun gear. Say no to ugly plastic. Say yes to beautiful dead critter skin. It's our own little stimulus package.

Ok, I'll conceed that we should be able to do both as the whim takes us.

lovenme · Mar 5, 2009

imported post

Thundar wrote:

ShotgunWilly wrote:

Let’s address the actual issue at hand here. First you say you weren’t looking for a confrontation. So going into a “busy retailer” with a firearm strapped to your side and additional magazines on your belt and you don’t think that’s going to cause any concerns for shoppers? You entered the store with a recorder on because you obviously intended for the cops to be called. You certainly weren’t there to exercise your right to OC for your safety, you were there to cause a scene and bait the cops into coming over and have to deal with some idiot walking around with a gun on his side. And people complain when it takes cops so long to respond to legitimate calls, it’s because the world is full of fruit loops like this guy looking for attention.
have an obligation to maintain public safety. Limited police resources, in a time of budget cuts and layoffs, being diverted to this type of activity only illustrates your selfishness and lack of concern for public safety. It’s only going to take one screw up on your part to make the wrong move when an officer is approaching you for the officer to think you are making a furtive movement towards your firearm and for an officer to smoke your ass. What good is your message when you’re dead???

Here’s an idea! Why don’t you get a CCW permit, carry your gun concealed and loaded in case you really do need it instead of intentionally wasting police resources, scaring mall patrons, and making yourself out to be someone you’re not! Who knows, carrying a concealed loaded firearm might make you feel like a seasoned veteran LEO, plus you can really impress the ladies with your concealed weapon! Well, maybe….

Click to expand...

Well said Willy. I would hate to see what happens if any of these people actually need to use the firearm. Not only that, when the s#$% is hitting the fan it will be interesting to see their reaction when all the citizens are looking at them for help cause they have a gun on their side.

Willy,

Why do you hate freedom?

Live Free or Die,

Thundar

lovenme · Mar 5, 2009

imported post

Citizen wrote:

ISupportECPD wrote:

SNIP It is also very interesting that the extra they do have is used to try to lure police, who I am sure they would be the first to call if they needed help, into going through with an “illegal arrest.”

Click to expand...

Sounds like luring to me. Why do you really OC? It is not to protect yourself because you could not get it loaded in time to use it. It is to fight the government, right? A few illegally detained? Then why is there no active court cases on this issue? If you do some research then you will see that state law 12031(e) allows officer's to check if the firearm is loaded. Arrested is another issue. If there was anyone arrested for this issue ALONE then you might have a legitimate complaint.

Welcome to OCDO!!!!

I don't recall any luring.

Open carry is the exercise of a fundamental human right. CCW holders are exercising a privilege, not a right. If one must ask government permission to carry, its no longer a right. Thus, open carry is all that is left of the carry prong of "keep and bear arms."

While openly carrying (OCing), that is to say while exercising an enumerated right, a certain number of us have been illegally detained. A few illegally arrested.

Some police have shown themselves to be opponents of this enumerated right. They are a special opponent in that they have powers that other opponents do not have, Sarah Brady for example.

Thus we are very alert for police. And ready to fight back effectively after the encounter.

I'd be just fine if I never had a police officer bother me in regard to my OC'd gun.

However, even luring would be fine with me. I'd rather an opponent of rights expose himself and get handled when he runs into one of us, than that he continues perpetrating his violations of the 4th Amendment on others. I very much doubt thatcertain police officers we've run into decided to makean OCer the first time in his career he violated a citizen's 4th Amendment rights.

Rights are rights are rights are rights. They require no justification. They are absolutely vital to our society, which is another way of saying government respect for them is absolutely vital.

I demand police respect rightsto the utmost.

I was arrested by El Cajon PD today...

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member