• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Out for cop blood?

N6ATF

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,401
Location
San Diego County, CA, California, USA
imported post

CA_Libertarian wrote:
SOneThreeCoupe wrote:
...I cannot open the minds of the law enforcers. I can probably open the minds of peace officers. Nowadays, there are too many of the former, too few of the latter...
Fixed it for you. And +1!

Nowadays it seems too many officers are more interested in enforcing laws which benefit criminals over law-abiding citizens than keeping the peace.

Fixed it for you both! LOL
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
imported post

MudCamper wrote:
Does anyone else find it odd that the new poster joined, posted a message in a thread with a VERY provocative title, then hasn't re-appeared?
No. It's not that odd. There are a lot of forum lurkers that don't normally post. Give him time.


Five days and only 1 post by the OP. It would on the surface appear that the OP was just trolling, or maybe just an LEO who wanted to whine.
Again, give him some time. Most people do not visit the forums on a daily/hourly basis.
Okay, it's been 11 days since his first and only post. I think that's enough time.
 

Theseus

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
964
Location
Lamma Island, HK
imported post

Besides, I dont' want blood, just their money!!

Kidding. I would rather not have to spend thousands on a lawyer to defend myself against a law I didn't break.

I would rather not be hassled at all.

But since I don't get what I would rather then I have to get what I can get after the fact.
 

codename_47

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
376
Location
, ,
imported post

He was wronged by an officer who did not understand the law and, in the end, was probably issued an 849(b)(1) PC certificate to "downgrade" his arrest to a detention, given his guns back, and sent on his way with an uncommonly explicit apology from the offending officer.

If you don't know the law, then you don't know how to do your job. Period. That can be an expensive lesson for municipalities. If I suffer harm because you don't know how to do your job, then I will teach it to you in court. You'll probably be able to figure it out then.

That's great. We need more people like Demnogis carrying openly, handling the inevitable law enforcement encounters maturely, and educating cops about this small facet of law.

So you are saying filing a lawsuit is immature?

You are the people who alienate otherwise friendly law enforcement officers.
Friendly LEO's don't point guns at innocent people or harass or disarm them for no reason.

You talk about how these rampant violations of your civil liberties will not stop until you hit agencies and officers in their pocket books. WRONG.

Umm, no that's pretty much the way it goes.

Face the facts that open carry in California is NOT THE NORM.

That's not really my problem. OC is not illegal. What are you the norm police? Stick to policing crime and you'll be just fine.

Do you have any idea how many statutes the average beat cop needs to be familiar with

Do you have any idea how little I care? That is your job and your problem to figure out. Here's a good rule of thumb, if you aren't sure it is illegal, maybe you should let it go until you ascertain that.

Do you know the laws regarding the administration of a Brethalyzer test incident to a DUI arrest?
I don't care. Do your job.

Do you know how to field test suspected narcotics?
I don't care. Do your job.

I really doubt that you're familiar with all of that -- but the average cop is.
So you are saying they can be familiar with all that, but can't figure out if carrying a gun openly is legal or not? You just gave a great reason for why cops SHOULD be familiar with OC laws.

You have the luxury of knowing a very small body of law very well
You have the luxury of having 10,000 ways to take away my freedom.

Police officers must know a very large body of law reasonably well just to wake up and go to work and feed their families

Look, if it is too hard, find another line of work.

I do not have the luxury of NOT spending my off duty time reading case law and re-reading statutes I haven't used in a while just to make sure I don't "maliciously, intentionally" wrong someone when I stop them for a traffic violation that I remembered incorrectly and subsequently arrest them for a host of narcotics and weapons violations.

Surely you aren't suggesting that you arrest people without doing a cursory investigation in the field to determine PC, right? I mean looking up statutes or decisions or calling someone is usually part of that investigation.

There is a very clear, very obvious difference between an officer who intentionally, maliciously violates your civil rights and the cop who misunderstands the law.

Yeah, its called punitive damages.

Usually citizens want cops to "have a heart" or "understand".

I just want cops to not be stupid or do stupid things. Unfortunately, you can't fix stupid.

If you don't want interactions between cops and open carriers to be confrontational, then help defuse them.

If you don't want a confrontation, don't create one. Don't start no stuff, there won't be no stuff.

Don't further the reputation of some open carriers (in some jurisdictions) as cop-baiters and money-grubbing lawsuit chasers wiling to sue over the smallest infraction (real or perceived) of your civil rights.

What's so bad about that reputation again?

Otherwise, you will only alienate those cops who WANT to be on your side, who WANT to see you exercise your (and our!) rights, but don't want their name, family, and good reputation dragged through the mud in a federal civil rights lawsuit for a mistake.

Don't give me this "want to" stuff. You are on my side or you aren't. You believe in freedom and the 2nd/4th/4th/14th amendments or you don't. If you don't want to get sued, don't make mistakes.

However, I respect your apaprent decision not to.

I don't. I think he is part of the problem and only encourages bad policing by not suing.
 

Bueller

New member
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
5
Location
, ,
imported post

I didn't bother reading all 5 or 6 pages but I can tell you that the percentage of police officers (myself included) that are completely versed in all the case law as it replies to this issue is VERY low.

In 20+ years of working as a LEO, I've never been in a situation where I needed to conduct a 12031 check. Now that this issue has come to our city, we've had updated training and I was personally amazed at what some officers didn't know. I knew 90% of the info that was put out there. I'd say the case law that threw most people for a loop was the non-requirement to identify yourself and the inability of the LEO to run the serial # of the gun to see if it's stolen.

 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Bueller wrote:
SNIP I'd say the case law that threw most people for a loop was the non-requirement to identify yourself and the inability of the LEO to run the serial # of the gun to see if it's stolen.

So, the big question is, "Where on earth did those officers think they got the authority to do it?"

In this constitutional republic, government only has the authority it is given. If they did not know the authority for identity demands or running the serial number, from what were they deriving the authority? (rhetorical question)

You might help your fellow officers understand something. I'm taking it from the very court case they use to detain people: Terry v Ohio.

No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.

It comes from an earlier case, but the Terry court thought it important enough to quote it in Terry. Notice the wording. No right. More sacred. Free from all restraint and interference. Clear and unquestionable authority of law.

The court could have selected any one of who-knows-how-many quotes. Or made up their own. Or watered it down. But they didn't. There that quote sits. In the very opinion police use for authority to detain people.

Certain police need to aquire a new understanding that seizing someone or interfering with them even momentarily is a serious matter. The right of every person to the possession and control of his own person is of incalculable value and importance. Failure or refusal to recognize it, to give it its proper importance, shows nothing less than their loweredattitude toward their fellow men.
 

N6ATF

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,401
Location
San Diego County, CA, California, USA
imported post

Case law need not be studied if one simply follows their sworn oath to put the U.S. Constitution, the supreme law of the land, above all else. If there's a question, the only acceptable response is to immediately step back, don't even think about picking fruit off that poisonous tree and let the law-abiding citizen go unmolested, in accordance with the Constitution.

Far too many seem to have no question in their minds whatsoever that they have a blank check to violate multiple rights as long as it takes to get bored or dispatched to a higher priority call.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
imported post

Citizen wrote:
Bueller wrote:
SNIP I'd say the case law that threw most people for a loop was the non-requirement to identify yourself and the inability of the LEO to run the serial # of the gun to see if it's stolen.

So, the big question is, "Where on earth did those officers think they got the authority to do it?"

In this constitutional republic, government only has the authority it is given. If they did not know the authority for identity demands or running the serial number, from what were they deriving the authority? (rhetorical question)

You might help your fellow officers understand something. I'm taking it from the very court case they use to detain people: Terry v Ohio.

No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.

It comes from an earlier case, but the Terry court thought it important enough to quote it in Terry. Notice the wording. No right. More sacred. Free from all restraint and interference. Clear and unquestionable authority of law.

The court could have selected any one of who-knows-how-many quotes. Or made up their own. Or watered it down. But they didn't. There that quote sits. In the very opinion police use for authority to detain people.

Certain police need to aquire a new understanding that seizing someone or interfering with them even momentarily is a serious matter. The right of every person to the possession and control of his own person is of incalculable value and importance. Failure or refusal to recognize it, to give it its proper importance, shows nothing less than their loweredattitude toward their fellow men.

Quoted in its entirety for truth (and so I'll be able to find it again!)

That was some excellent wordsmithing, Citizen.
 

BB62

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
imported post

coolusername2007 wrote:
BB62 wrote:
Okay, it's been 11 days since his first and only post. I think that's enough time.
Typical for the power hungry. You'd better listen to what they have to say,but they have no time for your reply...because they are right.
Darned straight!
 

Bueller

New member
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
5
Location
, ,
imported post

Well Citizen, I didn't come on here to argue or be confrontational and keep in mind that I'm only sharing *my* experiences and or opinions.

I'll probably never be able to explain this in simple enough terms that many on this board will understand because too many people on here seem to think most cops are just power hungry thugs who go around abusing people for the fun of it.

However, to answer your question....not being able to identify somebody with a firearm or run the serial # just goes against the basics of police work. It's a felony to possess a firearm if you're a convicted felon but we'll never know if you're a felon since we can't identify you and run you're name. It's also a felony to possess a stolen gun but we'll never be able to verify if it's stolen or not if we can't run a serial number.

Like I previously stated, I was shocked when this case law was explained to my squad. Like many decisions that get made by the Supreme Court, I just don't agree with the logic on this one. That being said, it is what it is and I'll follow the law as required.



 

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
imported post

Bueller wrote:
Well Citizen, I didn't come on here to argue or be confrontational and keep in mind that I'm only sharing *my* experiences and or opinions.

I'll probably never be able to explain this in simple enough terms that many on this board will understand because too many people on here seem to think most cops are just power hungry thugs who go around abusing people for the fun of it.

However, to answer your question....not being able to identify somebody with a firearm or run the serial # just goes against the basics of police work. It's a felony to possess a firearm if you're a convicted felon but we'll never know if you're a felon since we can't identify you and run you're name. It's also a felony to possess a stolen gun but we'll never be able to verify if it's stolen or not if we can't run a serial number.

Like I previously stated, I was shocked when this case law was explained to my squad. Like many decisions that get made by the Supreme Court, I just don't agree with the logic on this one. That being said, it is what it is and I'll follow the law as required.




It's also a Felony to possess a stolen $10,000 Rolex. Do the police stop people and demanding they allow you to examine their watch and run the serial number to see if the Rolex is stolen?

It's illegal for a convicted child molester to be within a certain distance of a school. Do the police stop every person who is within that distance to run their I.D. to ensure that they aren't a "prohibited person"? After all, it's for the safety of the children.

If illegally detaining someone for the sole purpose of determining if their personal property is stolen, or the purpose of determining if it is legal for them to possess that property is viewed as "the basics of police work", then yes, those police who hold this view are indeed "power hungry thugs who go around abusing people for the fun of it".
 

Bueller

New member
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
5
Location
, ,
imported post

As expected, you want to twist everything around to fit your narrow argument. I received a private message from a moderator commenting on how he appreciated LEO's coming on here and offering a different perspective. He may have honestly felt that way but few others obviously agree. I didn't have to spend more than 10 minutes on here yesterday to see the sentiment held by many (most?) on this site.

My mistake for trying to offer a little insight from the LEO perspective but all you want to do is attack, challenge every point and then berate people who don't fall in step with your views.
 

pullnshoot25

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
1,139
Location
Escondido, California, USA
imported post

Bueller will come into his own if he sticks around long enough here. Lets not antagonize too much or too harshly.

Welcome aboard Bueller. You are in the right ball park but potentially batting for the wrong team (in terms of Constitutional thinking)

CARRY ON!

-N8
 

MudCamper

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2007
Messages
709
Location
Sebastopol, California, USA
imported post

Bueller wrote:
Well Citizen, I didn't come on here to argue or be confrontational and keep in mind that I'm only sharing *my* experiences and or opinions.

I'll probably never be able to explain this in simple enough terms that many on this board will understand because too many people on here seem to think most cops are just power hungry thugs who go around abusing people for the fun of it.

However, to answer your question....not being able to identify somebody with a firearm or run the serial # just goes against the basics of police work. It's a felony to possess a firearm if you're a convicted felon but we'll never know if you're a felon since we can't identify you and run you're name. It's also a felony to possess a stolen gun but we'll never be able to verify if it's stolen or not if we can't run a serial number.

Like I previously stated, I was shocked when this case law was explained to my squad. Like many decisions that get made by the Supreme Court, I just don't agree with the logic on this one. That being said, it is what it is and I'll follow the law as required.



Don't take it all too personally. It is difficult to determine the emotional component of a debater's words in this text format. If we were all sitting together having a beer we could discuss and disagree and still all get along reasonably enough.

Now to get to the details of your examples. I think the problem is that you believe that the "basics of police work" should include the ability to arbitrarily violate the 4A and 5A rights of citizens at will. Most here will disagree with that. Yes, a free society with strong civil rights makes police work much more difficult, but personally I prefer that society over one where police have ultimate power and the citizens have little or no rights.
 

Decoligny

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
1,865
Location
Rosamond, California, USA
imported post

pullnshoot25 wrote:
Bueller will come into his own if he sticks around long enough here. Lets not antagonize too much or too harshly.

Welcome aboard Bueller. You are in the right ball park but potentially batting for the wrong team (in terms of Constitutional thinking)

CARRY ON!

-N8
N8, am I beginning to see a pattern in your posts? :uhoh: JK
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

Bueller wrote:
As expected, you want to twist everything around to fit your narrow argument. I received a private message from a moderator commenting on how he appreciated LEO's coming on here and offering a different perspective. He may have honestly felt that way but few others obviously agree. I didn't have to spend more than 10 minutes on here yesterday to see the sentiment held by many (most?) on this site.

My mistake for trying to offer a little insight from the LEO perspective but all you want to do is attack, challenge every point and then berate people who don't fall in step with your views.
I don't want to call B.S. on this, but we do appreciate having LEO's on here. We appreciate hearing from them. We understand the frustration that our rights can have on you doing your job? You may suspect or even know in your gut that some is doing something illegal in a home but without probable cause or a search warrant you can't just enter someone's home? Can you? Will I give up these rights to feel safer? NO WAY. And neither would you? If internal affairs comes to you and says hey we just want to talk? I bet you as a good citizen should is say not without my lawyer or union rep.

There are only two moderators on this forum, and they are both strong supporters of not violating our 4th ammendment. I know who seems to be the main moderator looking and posting on the west coast forums himself has instructed and gave advise on sterile carry and not allowing police to do illegal checks.

I too would like to welcome you to this forum, as I hope the moderators would, but without proof I am not going to believe they think it is ok for you to I.D. and run gun serial numbersn on open carriers, especially when their numerous posts contradict that. So welcome aboard hopefully you have thicker skin than most who openly post as LEO here, can give your viewpoint without feeling others are "twisting" the facts to have their own viewpoint that is in line with the laws of our land.

You have to remember most on here don't dislike officers of the law, but most negative encounters come from a few officers, or in my case a whole department, who feel they have the right to hassle and harass open carriers.

P.S. To your other point most felons, conceal carry, and don't use holsters that is according to FBI studies. So the chances of a felon or a restricted person open carrying is very slim.
 

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
imported post

Bueller wrote:
As expected, you want to twist everything around to fit your narrow argument. <snip>

My mistake for trying to offer a little insight from the LEO perspective but all you want to do is attack, challenge every point and then berate people who don't fall in step with your views.
Believe it or not, but I'd be surprised if many people here saw that Rolex or child molester example as twisting your words around. I see the restrictions of government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms as untouchable. I would find the argument that the government could stop people and ask them about their Rolex infinitely more convincing because there is no right to keep and bear a Rolex (except we have the right to be secure in our person and papers and such). At least with the Rolex thing the officer would only be violating the fourth, with a gun he'd be violating the 2nd and 4th.

The constitution doesn't give any leeway with the bill of rights. It doesn't say the 2nd amendment can not apply in situation X. It doesn't say our papers can be demanded in situation Y. Some may think this logic are the thoughts of an extremist, but is it so? The constitution is the supreme law of the land and it overrules all. Police officers swear to uphold this supreme law of the land (and not the penal code). But yet the penal code trumps the constitution out on "the street". The logic to understand that reasoning is currently beyond my abilities.

I do applaud you for standing up for your point of view. I for one certainly wish there were more police officers on this forum because I'm all about talking through ideas and hearing various sides of arguments. I truly hope you decide to become a regular member here and lend us your opinions and insights.
 

coolusername2007

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
1,659
Location
Temecula, California, USA
imported post

Bueller, I do not believe anyone here is being confrontational, nor is anyone twisting your words around. Please understand that in this forum people take the written word very seriously, because this is a serious subject. As I stated in one of my previous messages, I am glad you're here discussing this issue with us at length and hope you choose to hang around.

Now having said that, please take note of some very important SCOTUS quotes...we feed off of stuff like this, again because it is vital to our belief in what our Republic was, is and ought to be.

This one is particularly interesting because it is quoted, in part, in no less than 3 US SCOTUS cases...


"...good faith on the part of the arresting officer is not enough. If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be 'secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects,' only in the discretion of the police." --quoted in part inTerry v Ohio, Beck v Ohio, Henry v United States
And as statedbefore Terry v Ohio has some choice words. For what its worth, here are a few from the very strongly worded dissent on this decision...most here would have preferred these words in the decision, not the dissent.


"To give to the police to seize a person on some grounds different from or less than 'probably cause' would be handing them more authority than could be exercised by a magistrate in issuing a warrant to seize a person."

"To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path. Perhaps such a step is desirable to cope with modern forms of lawlessness. But if it is taken, it should be the deliberate choice of the people through a constitutional amendment."

"There have been powerful hydraulic pressures thoughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today. Yet if the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can 'seize' and 'search' him in their discretion, we enter a new regime. The decision to enter it should be made only after a full debate by the people of this country."
 
Top