OC Loaded or Unloaded (Definition)

imported post

So what your advising people to do is have the police arrest you, you sit in jail for months while your attorney makes an appointment to see you, you lose your job and family and a large sum of money in the process, for them to finally see that you weren't in the state when they could have verified this in a few minutes and let you go. Yeah, your way is better.

As I said, be wary of talking to the police which is what YOUR LAWYER is doing. You can give them the little information to verify your story and that's it just like your lawyer can. You tell them, "I was in Las Vegas and this can be verified by ..." That's it. Then make them do the work.

imported post

_Patriot wrote:

So what your advising people to do is have the police arrest you, you sit in jail for months while your attorney makes an appointment to see you, you lose your job and family and a large sum of money in the process, for them to finally see that you weren't in the state when they could have verified this in a few minutes and let you go. Yeah, your way is better.

As I said, be wary of talking to the police which is what YOUR LAWYER is doing. You can give them the little information to verify your story and that's it just like your lawyer can. You tell them, "I was in Las Vegas and this can be verified by ..." That's it. Then make them do the work.

Click to expand...

First, the "advising" is not my property (your = possessive form of you, you're = contraction of you are)

Second, I am saying avoid being placed under arrest and being jailed by not giving them any evidence to use to hold you.

Third, If your attorney takes "months" to see you, you need to get a different lawyer. As many lawyers have said, if your lawyer tells you to say anything to the police, you have the wrong lawyer.

imported post

In my example, I said that 5 people say you robbed a bank. They have evidence already. What you tell them is that the evidence is wrong and here is why...

You are correct, I used the wrong form of "your." Great point. I am sure you have never mis-typed something and it has total relevence on our conversation.

Most people don't have an attorney to contact on the drop of a hat. And even if they do, by the time they can contact them, it has been days if not more. By that time you will have had an arraignment and possibly set up for pre-lim. They are not just going to let you go. Weeks turn into a month real quick. I don't know how many people can risk being in jail for weeks toa month or more. Even a good attorney may not be able to meet right away. As I said, a simple "I was not in town, I was in Las Vegas and you can verify by ..." would save you.

As I have said, be wary but I wholeheartedly disagree with never talk to the police. I try not to use the word "never" in any part of my life.

imported post

I'll agree that if you just so happen to have indisputable evidence on your person which can absolutely clear you of any wrongdoing that you should probably just let the police see it and avoid a whole lot of legal entanglement. On the other hand, such a situation is highly improbable especially if five people have claimed that you have committed a crime.

Outside of that, don't talk to police when you could in any possible way become a suspect.

imported post

Everyone's a suspect, and we're all guilty!

imported post

_Patriot wrote:

As far as the fourth amendment violation, I don't agree. Case law is clear that if an officer is in an area they are allowed to be and they see something, they can note it down or remember it. 12031 (e) permits the intrusion. see New York v Class, Horton v California, Coolidge v. New Hampshireand Arizona v Hicks.The 12031(e) inspection, they are allowed to inspect the gun. If they see the serial number it is fair game. Now, under Heller, the ispection may soon become unconstitutional, but we'll have to see how that plays out.

Click to expand...

12031(e) is unconstitutional, regardless of Heller. The legislature has written into law a presumption of guilt without reasonable suspicion the crime is being committed. I'm quite certain this won't hold up if challenged and scrutinized against the Terry Doctrine.

Imagine if the legislature wrote a law saying, "anybody wearing a jacket or coat protruding below the belt line is subject to search for concealed weapons." It's not much of a stretch of the logic found in 12031(e)... think about it.