Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 95

Thread: Detained in Home Depot

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Marrero, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    197

    Post imported post

    Afternoon Fellas,

    Been gone a while, as I have mentioned I work offshore and have had precious few days at home in the past month or so also my oldest Daughter just had her first child so , any way , good to be back and here goes.

    My wife and I were at Home Depot shopping Sunday when this female officer in fulluniform approached me and asked for my papers. Papers? I informed her there are no such papers required in La. she said I was wrong. Then I told her La was an open carry stateto which she replied Jefferson Parish is not. I then informed her no parish or county could over rule state law, to which she also informed me i was wrong.Then she asked me how she was to know the firearm was not stolen . My reply was "because just like the shoes on my feet, it is mine" I offered my ID as well as my side arm for inspection, she declined.

    Then she asked me what my qualifications for carrying a side arm were and what kind of training I had, I was going to ask her if Advanced Infantry in the United States Marine Corps would suffice but at that point I just blew her off, turned my back on her, and left.

    She also informed me as I was leaving that some one could easily take my sidearm and use it against me. It literally took ALL I HAD not to turn and say "Lady YOUR side arm would be much easier to snatch than mine" but I just kept quiet and left. When I got home I phoned Louisiana Carry who assured me I was legal (Thanks again La carry . You realy know your stuff and dont mind sharing your knowladge, a true brother)

    I printed all appcicable laws (again thanks to La.Carry) And PROMPTLY returned to home depot(strapped of course) To educate ,politely , New Orleans's finest female officer. She was not there but a fellow officer recieved the papers , promised he would give them to her and believe it or not assured me he would inform his co-worker I was indeed correct, he then shook my hand , said thanks and smiled. YEA BLEW MY MIND TOO!!

    Gotta tell ya fellas, I used to Despise All New Orleans PO-PO but I carry LITERALLY ALL OVER NEW ORLEANS and this is the first and only negative encounter I Have ever had.

    After probably hundreds of face to faces in wal mart, winn dixie and every other store in N.O. The police just look at my gun first then nod and go about their buisness. Really hard to dislike any one who treats you with respect .

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran XD-GEM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    722

    Post imported post

    Good to hear from you again!

    Believe it or not, there's actually a possibility that the letter I sent to Supt. Reilly awhile back has made its way to the District Commanders (the letter contained the various laws, court opinions and AG's opinion, probably all of the same stuff in your packet). I was at a NOPAC meeting and the NOPD lieutenant running the meeting indicated his knowledge of the AG's opinion to someone at the meeting. I'd guess you may have bumped into one of the newer cops; and I'd say you handled it well.

    Kudos to the 2nd cop BTW if you ever see him again. Which Home Depot was this?

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pierce is a Coward, ,
    Posts
    1,100

    Post imported post

    CaptainDan wrote:
    Afternoon Fellas,

    Been gone a while, as I have mentioned I work offshore and have had precious few days at home in the past month or so also my oldest Daughter just had her first child so , any way , good to be back and here goes.

    My wife and I were at Home Depot shopping Sunday when this female officer in fulluniform approached me and asked for my papers. Papers? I informed her there are no such papers required in La. she said I was wrong. Then I told her La was an open carry stateto which she replied Jefferson Parish is not. I then informed her no parish or county could over rule state law, to which she also informed me i was wrong.Then she asked me how she was to know the firearm was not stolen . My reply was "because just like the shoes on my feet, it is mine" I offered my ID as well as my side arm for inspection, she declined.

    Then she asked me what my qualifications for carrying a side arm were and what kind of training I had, I was going to ask her if Advanced Infantry in the United States Marine Corps would suffice but at that point I just blew her off, turned my back on her, and left.

    She also informed me as I was leaving that some one could easily take my sidearm and use it against me. It literally took ALL I HAD not to turn and say "Lady YOUR side arm would be much easier to snatch than mine" but I just kept quiet and left. When I got home I phoned Louisiana Carry who assured me I was legal (Thanks again La carry . You realy know your stuff and dont mind sharing your knowladge, a true brother)

    I printed all appcicable laws (again thanks to La.Carry) And PROMPTLY returned to home depot(strapped of course) To educate ,politely , New Orleans's finest female officer. She was not there but a fellow officer recieved the papers , promised he would give them to her and believe it or not assured me he would inform his co-worker I was indeed correct, he then shook my hand , said thanks and smiled. YEA BLEW MY MIND TOO!!

    Gotta tell ya fellas, I used to Despise All New Orleans PO-PO but I carry LITERALLY ALL OVER NEW ORLEANS and this is the first and only negative encounter I Have ever had.

    After probably hundreds of face to faces in wal mart, winn dixie and every other store in N.O. The police just look at my gun first then nod and go about their buisness. Really hard to dislike any one who treats you with respect .
    Wow, this Nazi cop needs to serve many years in jail for these multiple civil rights crimes.

    We need some sort of alarm that goes out to OC'ers to inform us when a brother is in trouble so the thin red line can respond immediately and close the line around the offender.

    Was this female officer acting under color of state law? If so, she's able to be named in a Sec. 1983 claim.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    you say you were detained. i thought that being detained means you are not able to leave on your own will. it seems she questioned you, didn't disarm you, and let you leave when you were good and ready. if it went down the way you said it did, then she definitly has some things to learn, but no rights were violated in your encounter, simply two people having a conversation. it is good to hear that you didn't make a huge scene like some people around here and actually went back with documentation that supported your claim and i commend you for that, but i do not commend you for emplying that you were detained when you obviously were not.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran XD-GEM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    722

    Post imported post

    Guys,

    You are both reading too much into Dan's post. Please don't turn another thread into a shouting match. Dan did not say she was anything other than misinformed (and a bit abruptly presumptive, perhaps); nor did he claim a rights violation.

    And sometimes "detained" doesn't have the legal meaning we often haggle over; it can simply mean "delayed."

    Dan's method of handling this is one that is actually more common among the members of this board than those to which lsushawn objects. Personally, I have a binder in my car with copies of the relevant legal items and offer to share them, when necessary. Sometimes, however, people believe what they want to believe and think that the articles are something ficticious.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    131

    Post imported post

    you say you were detained. i thought that being detained means you are not able to leave on your own will. it seems she questioned you, didn't disarm you, and let you leave when you were good and ready. if it went down the way you said it did, then she definitly has some things to learn, but no rights were violated in your encounter, simply two people having a conversation. it is good to hear that you didn't make a huge scene like some people around here and actually went back with documentation that supported your claim and i commend you for that, but i do not commend you for emplying that you were detained when you obviously were not.
    Yes.
    "Questioned in Home Depot" or "Affirmed in Home Depot" would be a more accurate title.
    Good for you in handling the situation like you did. Much of how a LEO reacts is based on a suspect's actions.
    You did well.


    Wow, this Nazi cop needs to serve many years in jail for these multiple civil rights crimes. We need some sort of alarm that goes out to OC'ers to inform us when a brother is in trouble so the thin red line can respond immediately and close the line around the offender. Was this female officer acting under color of state law? If so, she's able to be named in a Sec. 1983 claim.
    Edited to remove personal attack on smokin'.
    The cop asked questions. I don't think anyone's civil rights were violated. There will be no free motorcycles in this case. Your extreme rhetoric does not represent the other 99.9% of OCers, like myself, who find it offensive.



  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    131

    Post imported post

    Guys, You are both reading too much into Dan's post. Please don't turn another thread into a shouting match. Dan did not say she was anything other than misinformed (and a bit abruptly presumptive, perhaps); nor did he claim a rights violation. And sometimes "detained" doesn't have the legal meaning we often haggle over; it can simply mean "delayed." Dan's method of handling this is one that is actually more common among the members of this board than those to which lsushawn objects. Personally, I have a binder in my car with copies of the relevant legal items and offer to share them, when necessary. Sometimes, however, people believe what they want to believe and think that the articles are something ficticious.
    You're absolutely right. I tend to agree with some things and disagree with others. Discussion and debate are preferred to name calling and tripe.
    But, it is hard to keep from laughing at smokin' and his extreme rhetoric.






  8. #8
    Regular Member turbodog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Independence, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    Well handled CaptainDan. A credit to all who OC.
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    Him: "I carry my gun concealed"
    Me: "You're not very good at it"
    Him: "What do you mean?"
    Me: "I know you have a gun"
    End of conversation.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    XD-GEM wrote:
    Guys,

    You are both reading too much into Dan's post. Please don't turn another thread into a shouting match. Dan did not say she was anything other than misinformed (and a bit abruptly presumptive, perhaps); nor did he claim a rights violation.

    And sometimes "detained" doesn't have the legal meaning we often haggle over; it can simply mean "delayed."

    Dan's method of handling this is one that is actually more common among the members of this board than those to which lsushawn objects. Personally, I have a binder in my car with copies of the relevant legal items and offer to share them, when necessary. Sometimes, however, people believe what they want to believe and think that the articles are something ficticious.
    I don't recall shouting or name calling andIDO NOT object to OCing or handling situations in a calm reasonable manner.The only thing I was trying to get across is that the title of his thread will tend to make people (like 357) think that he was not allowed to go about his buisiness if he so chose to. The terminology used was very MEM esque. I commended him for handling the situation like he did, it was handled the way all encounters such as this should be handled.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pierce is a Coward, ,
    Posts
    1,100

    Post imported post

    derf wrote:
    it is hard to keep from laughing at smokin' and his extreme rhetoric.
    It's a sick sad gun owner who thinks free and unfettered OC is "extreme."

    Do you know that you're a fascist?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    131

    Post imported post

    smoking357 wrote:
    derf wrote:
    it is hard to keep from laughing at smokin' and his extreme rhetoric.
    It's a sick sad gun owner who thinks free and unfettered OC is "extreme."

    Do you know that you're a fascist?
    Ok, sorry, I edited mine while you were typing yours.
    I had a post deleted because it was a personal attack.

    I didn't say free and unfetterd OC was extreme. I said your rhetoric was extreme. It is. You are.
    I think you calling me a fascist is extremely funny.
    Your personal attacks on me do not really mean anything because your zeal and rhetoric have destroyed your credibility.
    Continue riding MEMs coattails. While I don't agree with him and some of the things he's done at least he has done SOMETHING. And we can discuss/debate his actions. So far all you've done is spout rhetoric.
    Fascist? LOL.


  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    545

    Post imported post

    Capt. Dan glad you had a happy ending.

    smoking dope if you are for real you are going to blow a gasket one day.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran XD-GEM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    722

    Post imported post

    lsushawn wrote:
    I don't recall shouting or name calling
    I didn't say that there had been any of that in this thread; it looked like it might be coming and I was hoping to head off another unwarranted descent into vitriol, the likes of which have been happening way too frequently here the last few days.

    lsushawn wrote:
    The only thing I was trying to get across is that the title of his thread will tend to make people (like 357) think that he was not allowed to go about his buisiness if he so chose to. The terminology used was very MEM esque.
    I thought I had covered that when I said that "detained" can simply mean "delayed" as in the phrase, "I was unavoidably detained." Although some people might read the more legal meaning into the word, not everyone will; but I grant you it could be so construed.

    lsushawn wrote:
    I commended him for handling the situation like he did, it was handled the way all encounters such as this should be handled.
    Thank you for seeing it this way; most of the regularcontributors at OCDO see it this way as well.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Marrero, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    197

    Post imported post

    evening guys,

    just checked in and saw all the posts. good to be back amoung friends and as allways appreciate all the support.

    however guys maybe I was too vague so let me clear it up a little. I was not physically detained so maybe I should have worded it differently. I didnt intend to cry wolf, however I did feel punked at the beginning and I knew if I had shown any weakness I would have probably been pushed further. I did not let it get that far. I knew my rights, stated them (without arguing) and left when she lost her steam. Had I not shut her down I am sure this would have gone worse than it did. I did however get the feeling , especially in the beginning, when she was demanding awnsers, that while I was not in a head lock I was being detained. When she knew I had her , it ended.

    Now, having said that, I do not feel raped,violated or wronged. Mildly agrivated at best. I won, she got nothing, and her co-workers know she's been got. just thought you guys would find this incident interesting. I CHOSE not to make a scene, why would I? She didn't get my gun and I left when I had enough.

    So all though I wasn't cuffed, I was detained, all though shortly, my knowledge of the laws (again thanks to La. openCarry) was probably what keptme froma ride in the taxpayers finest crown vic. So like i said no harm no foul.

    By the way, she was in full uniform and I do know her first name, when I returned to give her the papers the other officer told me her name.I just left it out becouse nothing came of it, had I been arrested I would Spray paint her name on the court house wall.

    Thanks again guys for the support and remember you don't necessarily have to be maced and cuffed to be detained. Stopped and forced to awnser questions while minding ones own buisness, in my mind anyway, is, if even asmall form, a form of detainment.

    Great to be back guys

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Marrero, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    197

    Post imported post

    Oh yea, XD-Gem it was the Home Depot in Marrero

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    131

    Post imported post

    CaptainDan wrote:
    Oh yea, XD-Gem it was the Home Depot in Marrero
    Marrero? I'm surprised the cop didn't say "Thanks for bringing the roscoe, we may need it".


  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Marrero, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    197

    Post imported post

    Believe it or not as I mentioned earlier, this was the first (hopefully the last) negative occurance I have ever had.At leastin my case anyway, N.O. seems to be gun friendly. Probably in no small part dueto the efforts of our brother in arms XD-Gem and others like him.



  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    55

    Post imported post

    not sure of what you are saying but i do know that new orleans has some special gun laws that no one in hte state has

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    55

    Post imported post

    not sure of what you are saying but i do know that new orleans has some special gun laws that no one in hte state has

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    131

    Post imported post

    kimber10mm wrote:
    not sure of what you are saying but i do know that new orleans has some special gun laws that no one in hte state has
    There is a ******* trying to get some laws passed but he is failing like the idiot he is.

    Some laws are in place regarding CCing around parades, though.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Marrero, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    197

    Post imported post

    kimber10mm wrote:
    not sure of what you are saying but i do know that new orleans has some special gun laws that no one in hte state has
    just saying I have had (aside fromthe home depot )absolutly no problem OCing anywhere in N.O,

    Actually I was shocked when it happened at first

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

    Post imported post

    I'm still not sure I understand clearly whether this was a consensual encounter or a detention.

    Would you clear that up for me, Cap'n.



    For those who might be unfamiliar, here is a quote from a US Supreme Court case, US vs Mendenhall,that gives some indications of whether a detention occurred. I cheerfully recommend reading the entire opinion at the link below.

    We adhere to the view that a person is "seized" only when, by means of physical force or a show of authority, his freedom of movement is restrained. Only when such restraint is imposed is there any foundation whatever for invoking constitutional safeguards. The purpose of the Fourth Amendment is not to eliminate all contact between the police and the citizenry, but "to prevent arbitrary and oppressive interference 428 U.S. 543, 554. As long as the person to whom questions are put remains free to disregard the questions and walk away, there has been no intrusion upon that person's liberty or privacy as would under the Constitution require some particularized and objective justification...

    We conclude that a person has been "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave. [n6] Examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, even where the person did not attempt to leave, would be the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled. See Terry v. Ohio, supra at 19, n. 16; Dunaway v. 442 U.S. 200, 207, and n. 6; 3 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure 53-55 (1978). In the absence of some such evidence, otherwise inoffensive contact between a member of the public and the police cannot, as a matter of law, amount to a seizure of that person.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...6_0544_ZO.html
    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
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Marrero, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    197

    Post imported post

    ok here goes, the facts are as follows: She approached me, began firing questions at me, demanded awnsers and stepped directly in my personal space, before i awnsered the first question , I stepped back and she once again closed the gap. When I did not cower she literally shrank back , when I felt the tide turn during the course of the interogation I ended it by leaving. I never said she touched me, grabbed me or tried to disarm me. I even said I offered my ID and sidearm for inspection after she insinuated( after not producing this mystery paperwork) my firearm was stolen, and she declined. This officer TRIED to use intimidation to keep me EXACTLY where I was until I awnsered all her questions, TO HER SATISFACTION, she did not count on an educated citizen and it blew up in her face. I know without a doubt she planned on cuffing me but was shocked and didn't know what to do when I educated her. Now, the second officer was not only educated but also polite and actually very pleasant.

    Now , I was stopped, bullied, and kept for interogation, that IS DETAINMENT.

    I have no ill feelings, no sence of rape becouse NOTHING CAME OF IT, however it was detainment, perhaps not physical but she used her badge to stop me, question me and basically bully me. Will I persue this? no, I am not bleeding nor bruised and also becouse of this incident I found out that at least 1 LEO is on our side. Not a bad trade.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Marrero, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    197

    Post imported post

    I don't even think she is allowed to ask me about my side arm without at least one of the following conditions:

    1 a crime has been commited

    2 a crime is about to be commited

    3 a crime is being commited

    violation of civil rights? I think so but not putting much into it becouse , like I said, nothing came of it.



  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Marrero, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    197

    Post imported post

    lsushawn wrote:
    XD-GEM wrote:
    Guys,

    You are both reading too much into Dan's post. Please don't turn another thread into a shouting match. Dan did not say she was anything other than misinformed (and a bit abruptly presumptive, perhaps); nor did he claim a rights violation.

    And sometimes "detained" doesn't have the legal meaning we often haggle over; it can simply mean "delayed."

    Dan's method of handling this is one that is actually more common among the members of this board than those to which lsushawn objects. Personally, I have a binder in my car with copies of the relevant legal items and offer to share them, when necessary. Sometimes, however, people believe what they want to believe and think that the articles are something ficticious.
    I don't recall shouting or name calling andIDO NOT object to OCing or handling situations in a calm reasonable manner.The only thing I was trying to get across is that the title of his thread will tend to make people (like 357) think that he was not allowed to go about his buisiness if he so chose to. The terminology used was very MEM esque. I commended him for handling the situation like he did, it was handled the way all encounters such as this should be handled.
    concerning the "very MEM esque" comment , I must reply. I neitherfollow nor worship any man, MEM is a member of this forum just as you and I and to imply someone ealse is mimicking him is to imply he is in some way wrong. I am neither better nor worse a man than Mark, different yes, I chose to handle my situation VERY DIFFERENTLY than Markmight have. Possibly becouse of the screwing he recieved during his incident. I have not been treated in any way, shape or formas badly as him so I harbor no deephatred for LEO. When I used the term Detained I didn't mean it in the literal sence as perhaps(I can't speak for the man) Mark might have. When I am stopped, interogated and bullied, taking my time to have a conversation I didn't want to have, that is to me being detained.I did not say arrested, I said detained. Mark is entitled to his point of view as are you and I. Do I want to be just like him, you or anybody ealse? He#$ no. My wife married Captain Dan, not Mark,Jim, Bob or anybody ealse. I assure you I am EXTREMELY capable of standing on my own merits without having to mimmic the actions of others.Iwould ratherhandle confrontations calmly with manners instead of cheap shots and juvenile name calling, it works for me. If I have to roll up my sleeves and and get messy, fine. In fact there is way too much grass outside for name calling , I just don't play that way. I hope no one takes offense to this post as I truly enjoy the company of like mindedfree citizenshowever I want it made clear I am my own man.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •