Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: My 4-23-09 detainment

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Just posted it up. Check the blog.

    http://caopencarry.blogspot.com

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Elk Grove, California, USA
    Posts
    110

    Post imported post

    Out-friggin-standing!



    Well done and very professional.



    Please keep us posted as to their reply, if any.

  3. #3
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    In the future I think quoting US v. Ubiles would be extremely relevant. As always though, you're totally on top of the situation and I'm sure you will handle everything appropriately. Good writeup, I hope the officers are disciplined in some manner.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post imported post

    Very well written, nice use of bold as well. That'll catch some eyes, and with a little push should raise hell down at the station. Good job!

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    Well done. Only comment I have is on the following.


    Under Terry vs. Ohio, only a quick surface search is permitted. As you can see from the story above, I was not only given a rough external search, but my pockets were cleaned out and my effects seized, the most valuable to my (immediate) liberties being my wallet and voice recorder.
    http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfd4dr97_0c3cf2vfj

    I believe the courts have (as you intimated in your writings) that what is allowed under Terry vs. Ohio is not a "search" per se, but a "frisk". What the officers did was a "search", which violates Terry.


    Good for you, and thanks for standing up.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Heh, heh, heh. Go get 'em!

    The next is not so much a criticism as a suggestion for next time.

    When it comes to formal complaints, always make it clear what redress you want. Officers' heads on pikes, reprimands, officer training, dispatcher training, formal apology, assurance it won't happen again, whatever you want.

    Heh, heh, heh.Let us know how this turns out.
    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.

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    ghostrider wrote:
    Only comment I have is on the following.


    Under Terry vs. Ohio, only a quick surface search is permitted. As you can see from the story above, I was not only given a rough external search, but my pockets were cleaned out and my effects seized, the most valuable to my (immediate) liberties being my wallet and voice recorder.
    http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfd4dr97_0c3cf2vfj

    I believe the courts have (as you intimated in your writings) that what is allowed under Terry vs. Ohio is not a "search" per se, but a "frisk". What the officers did was a "search", which violates Terry.
    I think you misunderstand Terry v Ohio. The case is about the once gray area between consentual encounter and arrest. Terry argued that police have no right to search unless they have probable cause to arrest. The state argued that a "stop and frisk" was not at all a seizure or search of the person. The court rebuked both sides.

    Realize that the "stop" and "frisk" are separate. A "stop" is a 4A seizure of the person, but is justified if both of the following criteria are met:
    • The officer can articulate facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe a crime has been committed, is in progress, or is about to be committed.
    • The officer can articulate facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe the subject of his "stop and frisk" is somehow involved in that criminal activity.
    A "frisk" is a 4A search that is justified if both of the above and all of the following criteria are met:
    • The officer can articulate facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the subject is armed.
    • The officer can articulate facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the subject presents an immediate danger.
    • The search is a limited "pat down" of the exterior of the clothing in order to locate weapons (not to find wallets/IDs/etc).
    The officers in Pullnshoot25's situation performed a seizure of his person, a search of his person, and also performed TWO searches of his property (by inspecing his firearm and looking through his wallet). None of them meet the criteria set forth in Terry. 12031(e) purports to bypass the Terry Doctrine, but I doubt this would hold up even in the lower appeals courts in CA. Even if 12031(e) were allowed to stand, the officers went far beyond what would be authorized.


    ETA: The court has some very powerful language in describing a "frisk":

    Even a limited search of the outer clothing for weapons constitutes a severe,though brief, intrusion upon cherished personal security, and it must surely be an annoying, frightening, and perhaps humiliating experience.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  8. #8
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Sons of Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Riverside, California, USA
    Posts
    638

    Post imported post

    Excellent documentation of your complaint and concerns!

    You sure do haveunbelievable restraintif you're not pursuing a lawsuit over this encounter.

    It burns me up to hear that these LEO's act as they can do just about anything they feelis reasonableandact as thoughthey need not concern themselves with whether what they feel is reasonable... islawful behavior.

    Maybe a lawsuit is the best way to get the department's attention.
    Clinging to God & Guns: The Constitution Restoration Project

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Sons of Liberty wrote:
    Excellent documentation of your complaint and concerns!

    You sure do haveunbelievable restraintif you're not pursuing a lawsuit over this encounter.

    It burns me up to hear that these LEO's act as they can do just about anything they feelis reasonableandact as thoughthey need not concern themselves with whether what they feel is reasonable... islawful behavior.

    Maybe a lawsuit is the best way to get the department's attention.
    This would have been a good case had I not been so flustered. Between my 4-7-09 detainment and Bruce Ruff saying he would "do me" if he saw me walking down the street while OCing I was a little fed up and said some things I shouldn't have (like the F-bomb)

    I am not proud of it and it should have never happened and I let a perfectly good opportunity slip away because of it. If I were to play the audio recording in front of a jury, I would have a tainted jury and I would lose.

    There will be others. The perfect storm is just around the corner.

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    pullnshoot25 wrote:
    ...and Bruce Ruff saying he would "do me" if he saw me walking down the street while OCing...
    Sounds like he can't resist a handsome guy with a gun.


    ...yeah, I went there.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pierce is a Coward, ,
    Posts
    1,100

    Post imported post

    pullnshoot25 wrote:
    Sons of Liberty wrote:
    Excellent documentation of your complaint and concerns!

    You sure do haveunbelievable restraintif you're not pursuing a lawsuit over this encounter.

    It burns me up to hear that these LEO's act as they can do just about anything they feelis reasonableandact as thoughthey need not concern themselves with whether what they feel is reasonable... islawful behavior.

    Maybe a lawsuit is the best way to get the department's attention.
    This would have been a good case had I not been so flustered. Between my 4-7-09 detainment and Bruce Ruff saying he would "do me" if he saw me walking down the street while OCing I was a little fed up and said some things I shouldn't have (like the F-bomb)

    I am not proud of it and it should have never happened and I let a perfectly good opportunity slip away because of it. If I were to play the audio recording in front of a jury, I would have a tainted jury and I would lose.

    There will be others. The perfect storm is just around the corner.
    What? You're the citizen. You're in the right. "F***" is a normal word that everyone hears and uses a hundred times, a day. How in the f- are we supposed to f-ing talk if we can't f-ing us "f-"? If you have an audio recording of a cop violating your civil rights under color of law, get a lawyer, and take the cop to federal court.

    Why are you not proud of using the f- word? I don't get this, at all.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    smoking357 wrote:
    pullnshoot25 wrote:
    Sons of Liberty wrote:
    Excellent documentation of your complaint and concerns!

    You sure do haveunbelievable restraintif you're not pursuing a lawsuit over this encounter.

    It burns me up to hear that these LEO's act as they can do just about anything they feelis reasonableandact as thoughthey need not concern themselves with whether what they feel is reasonable... islawful behavior.

    Maybe a lawsuit is the best way to get the department's attention.
    This would have been a good case had I not been so flustered. Between my 4-7-09 detainment and Bruce Ruff saying he would "do me" if he saw me walking down the street while OCing I was a little fed up and said some things I shouldn't have (like the F-bomb)

    I am not proud of it and it should have never happened and I let a perfectly good opportunity slip away because of it. If I were to play the audio recording in front of a jury, I would have a tainted jury and I would lose.

    There will be others. The perfect storm is just around the corner.
    What? You're the citizen. You're in the right. "F***" is a normal word that everyone hears and uses a hundred times, a day. How in the f- are we supposed to f-ing talk if we can't f-ing us "f-"? If you have an audio recording of a cop violating your civil rights under color of law, get a lawyer, and take the cop to federal court.

    Why are you not proud of using the f- word? I don't get this, at all.
    Because generally speaking profanity is the linguistic crutch of the inarticulate. It generally shows that a person has allowed their emotions to override theirintellect.

    If I want to make a point, I don't use profanity.

    If I smash my thumb with a hammer, I may just shout out the "F".

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pierce is a Coward, ,
    Posts
    1,100

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    Because generally speaking profanity is the linguistic crutch of the inarticulate. It generally shows that a person has allowed their emotions to override theirintellect.
    Absolutely not. This is an oft-repeated claim, but it always stands without support.

    Profanity evinces honesty, and a healthy mix of profanity in a well constructed argument redoubles the effect.

    Further, profanity has an accuracy that escapes the ordinary lexicon. There is no more precise way to describe a f-ing a-hole than with those very words.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    But profanity taints a juror's mind. In this instance, I would not get a good jury.

    The right battle has not come along quite yet. Fret not though, I am sure it will happen.

  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    smoking357 wrote:
    Decoligny wrote:
    Because generally speaking profanity is the linguistic crutch of the inarticulate. It generally shows that a person has allowed their emotions to override theirintellect.
    Absolutely not. This is an oft-repeated claim, but it always stands without support.

    Profanity evinces honesty, and a healthy mix of profanity in a well constructed argument redoubles the effect.

    Further, profanity has an accuracy that escapes the ordinary lexicon. There is no more precise way to describe a f-ing a-hole than with those very words.
    +1!

    I think the whole "profanity is a crutch for a weak mind" line was made up by some religious ******** trying to impose their dogmatic morality upon the populace.

    I'm intelligent. I enjoy profanity. Maybe it's my rebellion against religious indoctrination. Perhaps it's just part of growing up on construction sites (family business) and being around that language since age 5. Perhaps I just think it's an excellent and efficient way to portray emphasis.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Oregon, USA
    Posts
    281

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    smoking357 wrote:
    Decoligny wrote:
    Because generally speaking profanity is the linguistic crutch of the inarticulate. It generally shows that a person has allowed their emotions to override theirintellect.
    Absolutely not. This is an oft-repeated claim, but it always stands without support.

    Profanity evinces honesty, and a healthy mix of profanity in a well constructed argument redoubles the effect.

    Further, profanity has an accuracy that escapes the ordinary lexicon. There is no more precise way to describe a f-ing a-hole than with those very words.
    +1!

    I think the whole "profanity is a crutch for a weak mind" line was made up by some religious @#$%s trying to impose their dogmatic morality upon the populace.

    I'm intelligent. I enjoy profanity. Maybe it's my rebellion against religious indoctrination. Perhaps it's just part of growing up on construction sites (family business) and being around that language since age 5. Perhaps I just think it's an excellent and efficient way to portray emphasis.
    You gents are missing the point. Decoligny said twice that his statements were generalizations.

    While profanity may indeed be useful for emphasis (CA_Libertarian) or for precise descriptions (smoking357), in a majority of cases profanity is used incorrectly as filler words for the inarticulate or as an expression of strong emotion where a rational response would have yielded better results.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    American Rattlesnake wrote:
    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    smoking357 wrote:
    Decoligny wrote:
    Because generally speaking profanity is the linguistic crutch of the inarticulate. It generally shows that a person has allowed their emotions to override theirintellect.
    Absolutely not. This is an oft-repeated claim, but it always stands without support.

    Profanity evinces honesty, and a healthy mix of profanity in a well constructed argument redoubles the effect.

    Further, profanity has an accuracy that escapes the ordinary lexicon. There is no more precise way to describe a f-ing a-hole than with those very words.
    +1!

    I think the whole "profanity is a crutch for a weak mind" line was made up by some religious @#$%s trying to impose their dogmatic morality upon the populace.

    I'm intelligent. I enjoy profanity. Maybe it's my rebellion against religious indoctrination. Perhaps it's just part of growing up on construction sites (family business) and being around that language since age 5. Perhaps I just think it's an excellent and efficient way to portray emphasis.
    You gents are missing the point. Decoligny said twice that his statements were generalizations.

    While profanity may indeed be useful for emphasis (CA_Libertarian) or for precise descriptions (smoking357), in a majority of cases profanity is used incorrectly as filler words for the inarticulate or as an expression of strong emotion where a rational response would have yielded better results.
    Exactly. Profanity is also a useful tool for getting someone's attention quickly. But I find that it is "generally" overused by the majority of people and usually where it adds nothing of substance to the conversation.

Posting Permissions

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