Examiner.com: Federal judge tells police: leave open gun carriers alone!

imported post

No I was not impying his NCOS preveting him from OCing what I ment ,Is there a protcol for is some soldier gets detanied by LEOS since they work for a mayor and not the president. What are soldiers told to do in the event this happens.
As a military kid I know you defualt to your training and shut the hell up and just give them your Mil-Id.
Has Alamagordo released any apologies or statments?

imported post

Huck wrote:

That's something that's always pissed me off. Knowing the laws is part of their job! I was a Fireman for over30 yearsandI was expected to know my job! And the Fire Service is every bit as demanding and complicated as Law Enforcement, andI knew my job. I would'nt have been in the Fire Service aslongas I wasif I had'nt.

"Police cant know all the laws" is nothing but a weak excuse, especially when they expect we,the general public, to know the laws.

I aint LEO bashing, I justexpect them to know their job as I was expected to know mine and to do theirs in a professional manner as I did.

Click to expand...

I'd probably accept that argument, IF, when they didn't know the law, they had to err on the side of the citizen, AND if they believed that a citizen unintentionally broke the law, that they would err on the side of the citizen.

imported post

Yooper wrote:

Huck wrote:

That's something that's always pissed me off. Knowing the laws is part of their job! I was a Fireman for over30 yearsandI was expected to know my job! And the Fire Service is every bit as demanding and complicated as Law Enforcement, andI knew my job. I would'nt have been in the Fire Service aslongas I wasif I had'nt.

"Police cant know all the laws" is nothing but a weak excuse, especially when they expect we,the general public, to know the laws.

I aint LEO bashing, I justexpect them to know their job as I was expected to know mine and to do theirs in a professional manner as I did.

Click to expand...

I'd probably accept that argument, IF, when they didn't know the law, they had to err on the side of the citizen, AND if they believed that a citizen unintentionally broke the law, that they would err on the side of the citizen.

Click to expand...

It is even easier than any of those.

If the LEO cannot say to himself that he knows with total certainty that the activity is illegal, he has no business taking compulsory action against the citizen. If he does not know with complete certainty that the observed or suspected activity is illegal, he has no authority for a compulsory encounter. (Roadblocks and perhaps a few other odds and ends, aside.)

This ties in neatly with the court's comment in the OP matter about there being no law against OC in NM, thus the law is clear.

imported post

You kids just don't get it.
These "law enforcement officers" know quite well OC is lawful, they just don't approve of it.

imported post

Well they can always just suspend the powers of alamagordo and use the SPs to patrol the city lol.
I actually like that city alot its quite and not to much crazyness.
To be straight up this PD station needs to slow its roll and forvige my language but **** off and stop bothers our uniformed service members and citizens in general. But respect for our unifomred service members needs to be droped by force on any people involved with this mans situation by the firing and or displinoary action from the top to the bottom and get this city High Speed. An option if the Sps are first responders for this Pd station not assisting them no longer sounds like a point made to me.

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

You kids just don't get it.
These "law enforcement officers" know quite well OC is lawful, they just don't approve of it.

Click to expand...

And will perjure, obstruct justice, and do whatever it takes to chill the RKBA with impunity, in most cases.

imported post

deanf wrote:

What about this footnote from the decision? What an absurd argument.

Defendants contend that Mr. St. John was about to commit a crime because, had he refused to comply with their request that he leave the premises, he would have been trespassing. If accepted, this argument would significantly erode Fourth Amendment protections. Because the Court finds no jurisprudential support for Defendants' novel contention, no further discussion of it is necessary. Footnote 5

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Mike, do you see how dangerous that LEO argument would have been had the court accepted it?

The LEOs wanted the court to recognize fourth amendment authority to detain a person because the LEOs claim the person is 'about to commit' defiant trespass.

Well, if any court ever allowed that power, game over. There's no such thing as 'attempted defiant trespass' -- shows how desperate cops will try just about anything to gain immunity from their misconduct.

imported post

That decision was 16 pages of greatness!

imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

That decision was 16 pages of greatness!

Click to expand...

Yep!

Because the Court finds no jurisprudential support for Defendants' novel contention, no further discussion of it is necessary.

This, ladies and gentlemen, if translated to internet-speak, would be "ROFLMAO @ silly lawyerz!!!111!"

There were several other bitch-slaps against the PD's lawyers.